International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 41 (2013) 186197

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijadhadh

Inuence of adhesive thickness on high velocity impact performance of

ceramic/metal composite targets
Amar Prakash, J. Rajasankar n, N. Anandavalli, Mohit Verma, Nagesh R. Iyer
CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre, Taramani, Chennai 600 113, India

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Accepted 14 November 2012
Available online 21 November 2012

Inuence of adhesive thickness on high velocity impact (HVI) performance of ceramic (Al2O3-99.5)/
aluminium (Al5083 H116) composite targets is critically examined in this paper through numerical
investigations. Detailed parametric studies are carried out by choosing a practical problem and for a
range of adhesive thickness between 0.1 mm and 1.5 mm. Studies are focussed on normal impact of the
composite target by ogive nosed projectile with a velocity of 830 m/s. Numerical simulation is carried
out by adopting the Lagrangian approach and an axisymmetric nite element model. Impact responses
are compared in relative terms among different cases of analysis to highlight the role played by
adhesive thickness. Various response parameters such as shear strain developed at the interface of
adhesive layer, target deformation, energy transformation, depth of penetration and deection prole
of back plate are considered in the investigations. These response parameters are observed to be
inuenced to different degree by the adhesive thickness. In particular, the depth of projectile
penetration into the aluminium back plate is found to have non-monotonic variation with the
thickness of adhesive layer.
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Ceramic/aluminium composite target
High velocity impact
Adhesive bond
Depth of penetration
Shear strain

1. Introduction
During high velocity impact (HVI) on ceramic/metal composite
targets, kinetic energy of the projectile is dissipated through
shattering and erosion of projectile, fracturing of the ceramic
tiles, plastic deformation of back plate and heat. Energy transfer
from projectile to target is realised by generation and travel of
shock waves from front to rear face of the target. Transmission of
energy due to travel of shock waves in target materials and then
reection from free surfaces or material interfaces depends on the
type and thickness of adhesive used for bonding besides the
characteristics of adherend materials [1,2].
Zaera et al. [3] have studied the effect of adhesive layer
thickness on response of ceramic/metal armours to impact by
short and sharp nosed projectile. Two different types of adhesives,
namely, epoxy resin and polyurethane of different thicknesses in
the range 0.51.5 mm were used in the study. Based on the
responses, it was reported that thicker adhesive layer induces
deformation over a larger area of the metal back plate which is
meant to absorb most of the kinetic energy of projectile and
results in early shattering of the ceramic tile. As a consequence, a
key recommendation was made to avoid more than the required

Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 44 22549208; fax: 91 44 22541508.

E-mail address: sankar@serc.res.in (J. Rajasankar).

0143-7496/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2012.11.008

thickness of adhesive, particularly for thicker ceramic tiles, to

delay the fragmentation. Another important nding in a target
with an array of front tiles was that the adhesive between
adjacent tiles acts as cushion during an impact and suppresses
propagation of the impact effect.
Based on tests, Kaufmann et al. [4] concluded that non-oxide
ceramic tiles such as silicon carbide and boron carbide exhibit
relatively better impact performance compared to ceramic tiles
containing oxide component. Lopez-Puente et al. [1] have evaluated the impact performance of alumina/aluminium armours
consisting of 0.11.1 mm thick adhesive layer and concluded that,
for the chosen target conguration, 0.3 mm thick adhesive layer
results in better performance.
Studies have been carried out to identify the role of adhesive
ductility on the impact performance of composite targets [5,6]. It
has been suggested that the performance of such targets can be
signicantly improved by using chemically-altered adhesives that
are made ductile with mixing of suitable additives. Vaidya et al.
[7] have investigated adhesive bonded joints in structures subjected to in-plane and out-of-plane impact loads and reported
that normal load results in higher peel stress concentration in the
adhesive layer as compared to in-plane loading. Through numerical analysis conducted to understand dynamic fracture of the
adhesive layer, it has become clear that strain rate in the adhesive
layer can be several order higher than that in the parts attached to
it [8,9,10].

A. Prakash et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 41 (2013) 186197

Ubeyli et al. [2] have experimentally investigated the effect of

different types of adhesives on the performance of Al2O3/Al2024
laminated composite armours against 7.62 AP bullets. The measured responses have been used to show that polyurethane
adhesive enhances the resistance of ceramic tiles to spalling
compared to epoxy adhesive. Goglio and Rossetto [11] have
experimentally studied the behaviour of epoxy (Hysol 3425)
adhesive joints. Several values of lap length, adhesive and
adherend thicknesses were considered and tested till failure of
joint under different peel and shear stress combinations. Through
instrumented impact tests, it has been reported that the joint
exhibits higher strength for dynamic loading and minimum
required thickness of adhesive layer. Gefu et al. [12] have pointed
out that the interfacial strength of the adhesive layer decreases
with increase in the thickness of the adhesive layer over the range
0.11.0 mm.
The literature review indicates that adhesive bond plays an
active role in the performance of the ceramic/metal composite
targets to impact loads. Critical studies [1,3] have examined the
impact performance of composite targets mainly in terms of
depth of penetration of projectile into the back plate. In the
present paper, adhesive effect is studied based on additional
responses, such as shear strain at the interface layer or energy
transfer during an impact, which govern the failure mode of the
targets. Thus, the present study differs from others by attempting
to generate more information about the role of adhesive on the
performance of ceramic/metal composite targets.
Impact studies are carried out on Al2O3/Al5083 H116 composite targets. Extensive numerical experiments are carried out to
highlight the role played by the adhesive thickness based on nite
element method using the AUTODYN software. An example
problem consisting of single tile composite target is chosen for
the numerical studies. The parameters of the problem are carefully chosen to be within the practical range such that it is
possible to make relative comparison among the responses of
different cases. The studies are conned to normal impact of the
composite targets by ogive nosed projectile at a velocity of 830 m/s.
A 2-D axisymmetric nite element model of the target and
projectile is developed following the well-known Lagrangian
approach. Number of nite element analysis of the problem is
carried out by varying only the adhesive thickness in the range
between 0.1 mm and 1.5 mm. Impact responses such as shear
strain at the interface adhesive layer, target deformation, energy
transformation, depth of penetration and deection prole of back
plate are captured and compared in relative terms to provide a
measure of the inuence of adhesive thickness. For the chosen
problem, the response parameters are noticed to be affected by
different degree due to variation in adhesive thickness. Further, the
depth of penetration is observed to exhibit non-monotonic variation with the thickness of adhesive layer.

2. Adhesion mechanism
Behaviour of joints connecting similar materials (whether they
be metals, ceramics, composites or plastics) and dissimilar materials (steel bonded to copper, metal bonded to rubber or ceramic,
or a metallic contact to a semiconductor) can be different. In the
case of dissimilar materials, the engineering compatibility of
these materials is critical to their performance. Mismatch of the
elastic modulus is a common form of engineering incompatibility
which leads to stress concentrations and stress discontinuities at
the bonded interface between the two different materials (Fig. 1).
The adherend with stiffer material restricts the lateral contraction
of the other adherend. This induces shear stress at the interface
which may eventually contribute signicantly to debonding of

187

E1

E1>E2

E2

P
Fig. 1. Generation of interface shear due to mismatch in the elastic constants of
bonded adherends.

P
P
Adherend 1
Adhesive
Adherend 2
P
Fig. 2. Typical failure modes in adhesive bonds.

adherends [13]. Joints may fail either cohesively at the adhesive

interface or within the adherends or in a mode which is combination of the above (Fig. 2). The failure of the bond may be brittle or
may involve considerable plastic ow, accompanied by the
nucleation, growth and coalescence of cavitation. Many adhesives
are elastomeric, exhibiting a very large and reversible elastic
compliance [14].
Thickness of adhesive in a joint plays critical role to determine
the performance of composite panels for low as well as high rate
of loading [15]. Most designs expect uniform adhesive layer
thickness, although this is not always optimal. Slightly thicker
adhesive layers in high stress or strain regions can relieve stress
concentrations. However, excessively thick bonds are to be
avoided as they normally result in reduction of strength. The
optimal thickness of adhesive layer depends on a number of
factors like type of adhesive, material and thickness of adherends,
impedance ratio between adhesive and adherends, etc. [16].
Number of interesting investigations have been reported to
determine the inuence of adhesive thickness on impact resistance

188

A. Prakash et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 41 (2013) 186197

of composite targets, for example, analytical models [17,18], nite

element simulation [19,20,21] and laboratory experiments [22,23].
The investigations cover wide range of adhesive thickness from
0.09 mm to 2 mm. A classical elastic analysis leads to a conclusion
that bond strength increases with the adhesive thickness, whereas
experimental results are found to show exactly opposite trend.
Various theories have been proposed to explain this contradictory
behaviour. Adams and Peppiatt [24] have found that the joint
strength decrease with increase in adhesive thickness due to size
effect as thick adhesive layer is likely to contain more defects such
as voids and microcracks. Crocombe [25] has explained that as the
adhesive gets thicker, the plastic spreading of the adhesive along
the overlap occurs more rapidly. In spite of conducting extensive
research, the effect of adhesive thickness on the impact performance of single-lap or double-lap adhesive joints in composite
targets is still not understood clearly. In this background, the
proposed investigations are designed to generate more information
which will help in better understanding of the effect of adhesive on
impact performance of the composite target. Responses obtained
from numerical experiments are compared in systematic manner
and in relative terms to highlight the role played by adhesive on
impact resistance of the composite target.

3. Numerical investigations
Numerical investigations are carried out by analysing a single tile
ceramic/aluminium composite target for impact by ogive nosed
projectile. The values of parameters that dene the target and
projectile are decided by referring to standard literature [1] and
partly based on authors experience in conducting similar
studies [26].
3.1. Problem description
The composite target is made up of 8 mm thick ceramic
(Al2O3-99.5) front tile and 25 mm thick aluminium back plate

(Al5083 H116). Both the tile and the plate are of same size
100 mm  100 mm (Fig. 3). The thickness ratio of ductile back
plate to the ceramic tile is decided to be about 3 based on the
ndings of Lee and Yoo [27] and Lopez-Puente et al. [1].
A 7.62 mm calibre 34 mm long ogive nosed steel projectile having
a mass of 10.3 g is considered for the present study. The projectile
is assumed to impact the target in normal direction at a constant
velocity of 830 m/s. Inuence of adhesive thickness on the impact
responses of the target is proposed to be studied in detail.
Accordingly, seven cases with epoxy adhesive layer thickness as
0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 1.2 and 1.5 mm are intended to be solved.
Standard mechanical properties of the projectile and target
materials are presented in Table 1.
3.2. Finite element model
Numerical analysis is carried out by using the advanced
analysis software AUTODYN [28] which has special features to
model the nonlinear transient dynamic phenomena like high
velocity impact and blast. The objective of the present study is
towards understanding the effect of thickness of the adhesive on
high velocity impact performance of ceramic/metal composite
targets. Two-dimensional axisymmetric nite element model of
the target and projectile has been developed based on the
Lagrangian approach for solution. The Finite element model is
generated separately for each case of analysis by taking care of
the adhesive layer thickness. It is ensured that the model
corresponding to various cases of analysis differ by only the
thickness of adhesive layer and the approximate extent of highly
stressed zones. While developing the mesh, smooth variation of
element size has been ensured such that the highly distorted zone
contains ner elements as shown for a typical analysis case in
Fig. 4. The outer edge of the target is xed by applying suitable
boundary conditions (Fig. 4). The nite element mesh for the
adhesive layer is decided at by taking its thickness into consideration. Two layers of nite element have been used in cases
where the adhesive thickness is less than 0.5 mm. The 1.5 mm
thick adhesive layer has been modelled with 5 nite element
layers. On the same lines, 1.0 or 1.2 mm thick adhesive layer has
been modelled with 2 nite element layers while 3 nite element
layers are used for 0.7 mm thick adhesive. The model with 3 nite
element layers for 0.7 mm thick adhesive is shown in Fig. 4.
Continuity between different layers of the target is modelled
using node to node contact to maintain strain compatibility at the
interface. In order to capture the response under shock wave
propagation, gauge points are provided at sufciently close
interval at critical locations in the nite element model as shown
in Fig. 5. The distribution of monitoring gauges is given in Table 2.
3.3. Material model
The specic constitutive models of the target and projectile
materials and the values of their parameters are selected from the
built-in material library of AUTODYN software. The materials are

Fig. 3. Arrangement of composite target and projectile.

Table 1
Mechanical properties of target and projectile materials.
Properties

Shear modulus (GPa)

Density (g/cc)
Bulk modulus (GPa)
Yield strength (MPa)

Target

Projectile steel 4340

Alumina Al2O3-99.5

Aluminium alloy Al5083 H116

Adhesive epoxy

135
3.80
200
190

26.9
2.70
58.3
167

1.6
1.186
7.46
45

81.8
7.86
159
792

A. Prakash et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 41 (2013) 186197

Projectile

189

Targetpanel
Fig. 4. Finite element mesh.

Fig. 5. Distribution of gauge points.

Table 2
Distribution of gauge points in the FE model.
Gauge point number

Location in Model

1,
4,
5,
6,
7,

Projectile
Front face of ceramic tile
Ceramic tile-adhesive interface
Adhesive-aluminium plate interface
Rear face of aluminium plate

2 and 3
8 and 12
9 and 13
10 and 14
11, 1523

dened in terms of equation of state, erosion criteria besides

strength and failure models.
3.3.1. Projectile
For steel projectile, the strength and failure model proposed by
JohnsonCook is employed. This model is capable of reproducing
the strength behaviour of steel under large strains, high strain
rates and high temperature. Apart from this, linear equation of
state is adopted to consider the initial elastic behaviour of steel
under shock loads. More details about the material description in
terms of the parameters and their values are given in Appendix A.
3.3.2. Target
By treating the ceramic tile as brittle material, the constitutive
behaviour model proposed by Johnson and Holmquist (JH) [29] is

adopted in the present study. Both strength and failure behaviour

of ceramic are modelled using the JH model. While using the
model, the strength of ceramic is described as a smoothly varying
function of intact strength, fractured strength, strain rate and
damage. The model is combined with polynomial equation of
state in the present study.
JohnsonCook strength model is used for modelling the
behaviour of ductile aluminium back plate. The von Mises stress
is used as criterion to identify yielding of aluminium and the
material failure is identied through a threshold value of hydrodynamic tensile force (Pmin). The model is used along with a
matching hydrodynamic tensile limit for the material. This model
presents an advantage by requiring only few basic inputs about
the material and allows smooth progress in numerical calculations with consideration of tensile wave propagation. The linear
equation of state is adopted to describe the behaviour of aluminium back plate. Appendix A provides the complete information
about the material models used to describe the behaviour of
ceramic and aluminium.
3.3.3. Epoxy resin
CowperSymonds strength model is used for dening the
behaviour of epoxy adhesive under impact conditions. The shock
equation of state is adopted. Hydrodynamic tensile force (Pmin) is
used as criterion to identify material failure. This model is also
applicable in sub grids other than shell provided a constant
hydrodynamic tensile limit is specied. Care has been taken in
choosing the values for this limit. The selected model requires
only few parameters and allows numerical calculations to proceed continuously by accounting for tensile wave propagation.
Additional details about the material description of the epoxy
resin is included in Appendix A.
3.3.4. Erosion criteria
The present study is carried out based on analysis using
Lagrangian grid. During the high velocity impact analysis, the
Lagrangian cells near the contact point can usually get distorted
beyond acceptable limits and affect the progress of the numerical
calculation. Conventionally, the numerical difculty is overcome
by removing such highly distorted nite elements from the
calculations, i.e., articially eroding such distorted elements [1].
The element removal process is done automatically by checking
the instantaneous geometric strain values in the analysis against
the pre-dened values. The values of geometric strain used for the
different materials are presented in Table 3. The mass of such
removed elements is distributed equally to the corner nodes of

190

A. Prakash et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 41 (2013) 186197

Table 3
Percentage geometric strain.
Target

Steel 4340 Projectile

Ceramic (Al2O3-99.5)

Aluminium alloy

Epoxy resin

200

200

150

210

Fig. 7. Variation in velocity of the projectile at rear end (gauge point 1).

Fig. 6. Variation in velocity of the projectile at near front tip (gauge point 3).

the discarded element. By doing so, the inertia and spatial

continuity of inertia are conserved in the nite element mesh.
However, the internal energy of the material corresponding to the
removed element is lost in the analysis. Any free node that arises
due to the removal of elements is treated as slave nodes.
3.4. Results and discussions
The results obtained from the present numerical investigations
for different cases of analysis are discussed here.
3.4.1. Deceleration of projectile
The variation in projectile velocity monitored at gauge points 1
(rear end) and 3 (near front tip) for different adhesive thickness is
plotted in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. Both these gures show
continuous decrease in the projectile velocity from the instant of
establishing contact with the composite target. In general sense,
the velocity curves corresponding to front tip show a linear trend
while those corresponding to rear end show a parabolic trend.
These gures also indicate that the duration of impact is marginally less than 0.1 ms after which the system reaches steady state
equilibrium. This has been taken into consideration while subsequently plotting the variation of other responses. The plots
generally indicate that the thickness of adhesive induces oscillation in velocity of the projectile in the later part of the impact
duration.
The velocities corresponding to different cases are found to
differ by a maximum of about 10% (at rear end). The gures also
depict the expected trend that the rear end comes to rest before
the front tip portion. The velocity prole at rear end of the
projectile (Fig. 7) indicate almost no reduction in projectile
velocity for an initial duration of about 10 ms. This can be
explained by the expected delay in the arrival of stress waves to
the rear end of the projectile.
3.4.2. Transverse displacement in target
During impact the target material is subjected to thrust
instantaneously in the direction of projectile movement. This will

induce deformation in target and projectile along transverse

direction also, mostly of negligible magnitude due to inertia
effects. The transverse displacement in target recorded at the
gauge points 9 and 10 for the case of adhesive thickness 0.1 mm
and 1.5 mm are plotted in Fig. 8(a) and (b), respectively. As
these adhesive thicknesses represent extreme conditions, these
are chosen as representative cases for critical study. Since
separate gauge points are marked in the front interface (with
ceramic tile) as well as rear interface (with aluminium plate) of
the adhesive, it is possible to separately plot the interface
movement.
The variation of displacement plotted in Fig. 8 is found to
exhibit transient movement with mild oscillation. Besides this,
both the plots show a characteristic out of phase movement of the
participating boundaries at about 0.05 ms which is also seen to
have correlation with the time at which the projectile loses its
entire kinetic energy according to Fig. 7. The end of impact
process is also denoted by 0.05 ms while the subsequent
responses of the target and projectile can be seen as similar to
free vibration of the panel. As the chosen gauge points are
separated by only 10 mm from the impact location, there is a
strong possibility for the material at the gauge locations might
have been damaged at 0.05 ms due to impact and in such case, the
displacement recorded beyond this time represent spurious
values. Among the two cases studied, the front and rear interfaces
of the target are found to have a maximum relative movement of
about 0.35 mm in the transverse direction for 0.1 mm adhesive
thickness at about 0.05 mm. Such instantaneous variation of
transverse displacement at the interface induces transverse shear
stresses in adhesive layer and could inuence target failure
initiated by loss of adhesion. Further it can be seen that the
adhesive layer introduces damping effect as the maximum
transverse displacement for the case of 1.5 mm thick adhesive is
only 30% of that for 0.1 mm thick adhesive layer.

3.4.3. Interface stresses

In the ceramic based composite panels, shock waves (i.e.
compressive stress waves) propagate in both in planar direction
as well as along the thickness. When these compressive stress
waves reach the back surface of ceramic tiles, which are in the
contact with the adhesive layer, a fraction of incident energy get
transmitted into the adhesive and a part gets reected back. This
happens due to the mismatch of mechanical impedances in a
layered structure and induces tensile stresses in ceramic tile. As
ceramic is known to be weak under tensile loading as compared
to its compressive resistance, failure initiates where the tensile
stress exceeds a critical value.

A. Prakash et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 41 (2013) 186197

191

Fig. 8. Variation of transverse displacement at interface near centre of panel.

Fig. 11. Comparison of von Mises stress at 10 mm on front interface away from
centre of impact.
Fig. 9. Comparison of von Mises stress at 5 mm away on front interface from
centre of impact.

Fig. 12. Comparison of von Mises stress at 10 mm away on rear interface away
from centre of impact.

Fig. 10. Comparison of von Mises stress at 5 mm away on rear interface from
centre of impact.

For selected cases of adhesive thicknesses, the variation of von

Mises stresses at 5 mm away from the impact location with time
is compared in Fig. 9 for the front interface and in Fig. 10 for the
rear interface. A characteristic difference in the variation pattern
can be observed between the front and rear interfaces. In the case
of front interface, severe oscillations are observed during the
entire duration of observation whereas in the rear interface, a
relatively stabilised response is observed. In the rear interface, the
stress values are found to increase monotonically for an initial
duration of about 0.01 ms which is contrary to the observed
behaviour in front interface. In the case of front interface, the
maximum stress value among all the cases is found to vary
approximately between 0.55 GPa (1.5 mm thick adhesive) and

0.7 GPa (1.0 mm thick adhesive). This clearly represents a random

variation among the analysed cases. On the other hand, in the rear
interface, the maximum stress value is found to vary approximately between 0.40 GPa (0.7 mm thick adhesive) and 0.5 GPa
(1.5 mm thick adhesive).
The variation of von Mises stresses at 10 mm away from the
impact location with time is compared in Fig. 11 for the front
interface and in Fig. 12 for the rear interface. These gures show a
similar trend as observed in the response at 5.0 mm from the
impact location but with a slight shift in the time scale. In the case
of front interface, the maximum stress value among all the cases
is found to vary approximately between 1.4 GPa (0.7 mm thick
adhesive) and 2.10 GPa (1.5 mm thick adhesive). In the rear
interface, the maximum stress value is found to vary approximately between 0.25 GPa (0.7 mm thick adhesive) and 0.30 GPa
(1.0 mm thick adhesive). For most of the duration of observation,

192

A. Prakash et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 41 (2013) 186197

the von Mises stresses values show considerable oscillation for all
the cases studied.
3.4.4. Shear strain at interface
In ceramic/aluminium composite targets, due to differential
transverse movement of the interface, shear strains and stresses
develop which eventually results in fracture of the target, if
principal stress exceeds the tensile strength of adhesive. The
transverse velocities obtained at the companion gauge points
are used to compute the shear strain rate, e_ , Zaera et al. [3]

e_

vce val
had

where vce is the transverse velocity in the ceramic tile, val is the
transverse velocity in aluminium alloy at the same section and had
is the thickness of adhesive layer.
In the present case, gauge points 5, 9 and 13 form companion
to 6, 10 and 14 as these points lie at the same distance from the
point of impact but on the front and rear face of the adhesive
layer. The computed shear strain rates corresponding to the
7 different adhesive thickness values are plotted in Fig. 13. It
can be easily noticed from Fig. 13 that the rate of shear strain
induced at the interface is inversely proportional to the thickness
of adhesive layer.
3.4.5. Depth of penetration
The registered depth of penetration into back plate for various
cases of analyses is compared in Fig. 14(a). As a representative
case, the penetration prole of the projectile into the composite
target for the 0.5 mm thick adhesive case is shown in Fig. 14(b).
Following the convention in evaluating the depth of penetration
[30], the crater depth in the aluminium back plate is considered
as the depth of penetration in the present study. It can be clearly
seen that the depth of penetration varies from a minimum of

Fig. 13. Shear strain rate at the interface for different adhesive thickness.

about 3 mm (0.7 mm thick adhesive) to 5 mm (1.0 mm thick

adhesive) among the various cases of analysis. In general, no
direct relation could be established between depth of penetration
and adhesive thickness. Hence, it can be inferred that impact
performance of the ceramic/metal composite target exhibits a
non-monotonic response which further may be affected by the
ratio between the thickness of front tile and back plate besides
the type and thickness of adhesive.
3.4.6. Projectile response
As the depth of penetration of the projectile is recorded to be
least for 0.7 mm adhesive thickness, it is proposed to carry out
detailed investigations on the projectile responses for this case. As
can be seen from Figs. 6 and 7, the projectile velocity varies by a
maximum of about 10% between the locations of gauge points
1 and 3. This differential velocity within projectile could lead to

Fig. 15. Variation of internal pressure in projectile.

Fig. 16. Variation of von Mises stress in projectile.

Fig. 14. Depth of penetration in aluminium back plate.

A. Prakash et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 41 (2013) 186197

buildup of instantaneous pressure within the projectile. Therefore, it is proposed to probe the details on pressure and stresses
generated within the projectile during the impact.
The variation of internal pressure and von Mises stress in the
projectile is plotted, respectively, in Figs. 15 and 16. From Fig. 15, it
can be seen that the maximum pressure recorded at gauge point 3,
which is near the tip of the projectile, is about 4.5 GPa. The
maximum pressure at the adjacent gauge point 2 is found to drop
to less than 2.0 GPa. The large variation observed over the length of
the projectile conrms the validity of the model to capture the
typical response in a high velocity impact phenomenon. With regard
to the von Mises stress variation plotted in Fig. 16, linear trend can be
noticed up to a peak value of about 0.7 GPa (roughly the yield
strength of the projectile material) followed by a softening trend for
short duration and subsequently hardening response to reach a
maxium value of about 1.25 GPa. The peak value of von Mises stress
at gauge points 2 and 3 in projectile is almost same as can be seen
from Fig. 16. However, the peak value is registered rst at gauge
point 2 and subsequently at gauge point 3. The time lag is estimated
to be about 55 ms from Fig. 16. This is as per expected trend since the
shock wave generated from the projectile tip due to impact will
reach the gauge point 3 before reaching the location of gauge point 2.

Fig. 17. Variation of transverse velocity of projectile.

193

At the tail end of the projectile (gauge point 1), the von Mises stress
is recorded to be less than the yield strength of the material which
means that the material still remains in elastic state. Based on this
observation, it can be inferred that the projectile has plasticized only
partially in the front portion while the tail end still remains elastic.
The variation of transverse velocity (perpendicular to the
direction of projectile movement) recorded at the three gauge
points on the projectile is plotted in Fig. 17. The transverse
velocity in the projectile is the manifestation of plastic ow in
the material. In exact terms, the plastic deformation at the tip of
the projectile results in material ow in transverse direction with
velocity of about 35 m/s. The negligible transverse velocity
recorded at the remaining two gauge points conrms that the
material at these locations has not reached the yield state.
The intial shape of projectile along with the deformed shape
after impact is shown in Fig. 18. The nal shape of the projectile
shows severe deformation of the front tip with mushroom effect
due to plasticisation of material. The gure also gives information
about the estimated damage in the projectile according to which
only the front half of the projectile has non-zero damage while
the rear portion remains elastic with only negligible level of
damage. The projectile length is found to have reduced to about
20 mm at the end of impact, i.e., at 60 ms which corresponds to
the dissipation of entire kinetic energy of projectile.
The internal ow of material as a result of impact has been
captured from the velocity vector plot of target and projectile at
60 ms. Such a plot is shown in Fig. 19 which indicates complex
movements of the particles near the impact location and uniform
material ow along the direction of impact in the aluminium back
plate. The vector lines approximately indicating bulb shape seen
in the back plate are indication of outward material ow due to
very high compressive stresses generated due to impact. Similarly, the almost at lines seen in the back plate near the adhesive
interface are an indication of tensile stresses developed there. In
addition to this, it can be clearly inferred from the plot that the
ceramic tile ows against the impact direction due to extensive
breaking and separation. This response is seen to be only very
local to the exact point of impact. The material state at the end of

Final shape after 60 s

Initial shape
Fig. 18. Deformation of projectile.

194

A. Prakash et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 41 (2013) 186197

Fig. 19. Plot of velocity vector in target and projectile.

Fig. 21. Variation of kinetic and internal energies in projectile and target
materials.

Fig. 20. Plot of material state in target and projectile.

impact duration is plotted in Fig. 20 which conrms severe

erosion in the ceramic tile and the aluminium back plate which
is again very local to the exact point of impact. Further, in
accordance with the material data dened in the solution of the
problem, material states has been distinguished as elastic, plastic
and damaged, etc. The material information provided in Figs. 19
and 20 correlates well in terms of their impact behaviour.

3.4.7. Energy transformation

Before impact, the projectile possesses kinetic energy of the
order of 3.5 kJ. Due to impact, the kinetic energy is transformed
mainly as internal energy in projectile and target materials.

The extent of such transformation is governed by the presence

of hard ceramic tile at the front face of target and ductile
aluminium plate at the back. Variation of kinetic and internal
energies in the target and projectile materials is plotted separately in Fig. 21 for the case of 0.5 mm thick adhesive layer. The
gure shows the variation in only those materials that contains
substantial portion of energy. By applying this criterion, kinetic
energy variation in only the projectile material and internal
energy variation in the target materials except epoxy are qualied
to be plotted. As per Fig. 21, nearly 35% of kinetic energy of the
projectile is used up as its internal energy for deformation. There
could be signicant variation in the internal energy absorbed by
the projectile. The main contribution factor for the projectile
consuming large quantity of its kinetic energy is a clear design
strategy to ensure effective HVI performance of such structures.
The ceramic tile is responsible for offering resistance to the
progressive movement of projectile. As a result of this, the
ceramic tile is broken and shattered into pieces. According to
Fig. 21, breaking of the ceramic tile consumes about 24% of the
kinetic energy present with the projectile. Of the remaining
kinetic energy present with the projectile, about 12% is absorbed
by the aluminium back plate by the way of global deformation,

A. Prakash et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 41 (2013) 186197

195

Table A1
Description of the material models of target and projectile.
Material namealumina

Fig. 22. Deection prole of back plate.

local compression and penetration. The remaining energy can be

accounted by miscellaneous factors such as the energy absorbed
by epoxy resin, loss of energy due to heat, etc. which may not be
useful in an analysis of this nature. Nevertheless, such minor
split-up in the energy transformation can also be obtained by
suitable means.
3.4.8. Deection prole of target
Deection prole (or bulge thickness) of the rear face of back
plate is a measure of the energy absorbed by the back plate of the
composite target. The prole is calculated by nding out the
translational shift of rear face with respect to a xed reference
(that is xed edge which is 50 mm away from the impact
location) in the direction of impact. The calculated deection
prole of rear face of back plate for various thickness of adhesive
is shown in Fig. 22. Among the various cases analysed, the bulge
thickness at centre is found to vary approximately between 0.5
and 0.65 mm. The prole curves corresponding to some of the
cases are found to intersect each other thus indicating that a
complex relation between the thickness of adhesive, the area and
prole of the deformation zone. However, in general, it can be
noted that the radius of inuence is more for thicker adhesive
layer. This can be interpreted that the zone of plastic deformation
enlarges with the increase in thickness of adhesive layer.

4. Summary and conclusions

Inuence of the adhesive layer thickness on the high velocity
impact performance of ceramic/aluminium composite target is
studied in this paper through a detailed numerical investigation
using the AUTODYN software. Various response characteristics
like energy transformation, shear strain development at interface,
deformation of target and projectile, depth of penetration and
deection of back plate for different adhesive (epoxy resin)
thickness in the range of 0.11.5 mm thickness have been studied.
It has been shown that the adhesive layer plays a signicant role
in the impact performance and, therefore, a thorough investigation is required while deciding the thickness of adhesive layer in
the impact resistant targets. Based on the present numerical
investigation following specic conclusions are drawn:
i. Interface adhesive layer thickness affects the impact performance of ceramic/metal composite targets. The responses of
composite panels under high velocity impact like shear strain
rate, depth of penetration and back plate deformation, etc.
are found to be inuenced to different degree by adhesive
thickness. It is difcult to generalise these effects based only
on the present investigation as there are many other

Equation of State
Reference density (g/cm3)
Bulk Modulus A1 (kPa)
Parameter A2 (kPa)
Parameter A3 (kPa)
Parameter B0
Parameter B1
Parameter T1 (kPa)
Parameter T2 (kPa)
Reference temperature (K)
Specic heat (J/kg K)
Thermal conductivity (J/mK s)
Strength
Shear modulus (kPa)
Model type
Hugoniot elastic limit (kPa)
Intact Strength Constant A
Intact strength exponent N
Strain rate constant C
Fractured strength constant B
Fractured strength exponent M
Max. fracture strength ratio
Failure
Hydro-tensile limit (kPa)
Model type
Damage constant, D1
Damage constant, D2
Bulking constant, beta
Damage type
Tensile failure (Pmin)
Erosion
Erosion Strain
Type of geometric strain

Polynomial
3.80
2.0  108
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.00  108
0.0
293.0
0.0
0.0
JohnsonHolmquist
1.35  108
Continuous (JH2)
5.90  106
0.989
0.376
0.0
0.77
1.0
0.5
JohnsonHolmquist
 1.50  105
Continuous (JH2)
0.01
1.0
1.0
Gradual (JH2)
Hydro
Geometric strain
2.0
Instantaneous

Material namealuminium alloy

Equation of state
Reference density (g/cm3)
Bulk modulus (kPa)
Referencetemperature (K)
Specic heat (J/kg K)
Thermal conductivity (J/mK s)
Strength
Shear modulus (kPa)
Yield stress (kPa)
Hardening constant (kPa)
Hardening exponent
Strain rate constant
Thermal softening exponent
Melting temperature (K)
Ref. strain rate (/s)
Strain rate correction
Failure
Hydro-tensile limit (kPa)
Reheal
Crack softening
Stochastic failure
Erosion
Erosion strain
Type of geometric strain

Linear
2.7
5.83  107
2.93  102
9.10  102
0.0
JohnsonCook
2.69  107
1.67  105
5.96  105
0.551
0.001
0.859
0.0893
1.0
1st order
Hydro(Pmin)
 1.50  106
Yes
No
No
Geometric strain
2.0
Instantaneous

Material nameepoxy
Equation of state
Reference density (g/cm3)
Gruneisen coefcient
Parameter C1 (m/s)
Parameter S1
Parameter quadratic S2 (s/m)
Relative volume, VE/V0
Relative volume, VB/V0
Parameter C2 (m/s)
Parameter S2

Shock
1.19
1.13
2730
1.49
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

196

A. Prakash et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 41 (2013) 186197

Table A1 (continued )
Material nameepoxy
Reference temperature (K)
Specic heat (J/kg K)
Thermal conductivity (J/mK s)
Strength
Shear modulus (kPa)
Yield stress (kPa)
Hardening constant, B (kPa)
Hardening exponent, n
Strain rate constant, D
Strain rate exponent, q
Strain rate correction
Failure
Hydro tensile limit (kPa)
Reheal
Crack softening
Stochastic failure
Erosion
Erosion strain
Type of geometric strain

0.0293
0.0
0.0
CowperSymonds
1.6  106
4.5  104
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1st order
Hydro (Pmin)
 1.50  105
Yes
No
No
Geometric strain
1.5
Instantaneous

vi. The analysis was found to capture the transformation of

kinetic energy of projectile into strain (internal) energy and
deformation of both projectile and target.
vii. In view of the non-monotonic nature of the critical impact
responses with the adhesive thickness, a thorough numerical
investigation with selected range of values should be carried
out to understand the impact behaviour of ceramic/aluminium composite targets. The results of such investigations
can be judiciously used to arrive at optimum designs of such
targets for a given threat and checks can be made by
conducting limited number of experiments.

Acknowledgements
The assistance rendered by the post graduate student Mr. H.
Manigandan in carrying out some of the numerical simulations is
duly acknowledged. The authors thank Mr. K. Chandrasekaran, project assistant for his help in documentation.
This paper is being published with the kind permission of the
Director, CSIR-SERC, Chennai.

Material namesteel
Equation of state
Reference density (g/cm3)
Bulk modulus (kPa)
Reference temperature (K)
Specic heat (J/kg K)
Thermal conductivity (J/mK s)
Strength
Shear modulus (kPa)
Yield stress (kPa)
Hardening constant (kPa)
Hardening exponent
Strain Rate constant
Thermal softening exponent
Melting temperature (K)
Ref. strain rate (/s)
Strain rate correction
Failure
Damage constant, D1
Damage constant, D2
Damage constant, D3
Damage constant, D4
Damage constant, D5
Melting temperature (K)
Ref. strain rate (/s)
Erosion
Erosion strain
Type of geometric strain

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

Linear
7.86
1.59  108
300.0
477.0
0.0
JohnsonCook
7.70  107
7.92  105
5.10  105
0.26
0.0140
1.03
1790.0
1.0
1st order
JohnsonCook
0.05
3.44
 2.12
0.0020
0.61
1790
1.0
Geometric strain
2.1
Instantaneous

probable parameters like ratio of ceramic tile to aluminium

plate, type of adhesive, material composition of projectile
and target and shape of projectile tip involved in an
impact event.
Depth of penetration due to projectile impact is found to
exhibit non-monotonic variation with adhesive layer
thickness.
Relative transverse displacement between the ceramic tile
and aluminium plate results as transient response of shear
stress at the interface. Shear strain rate obtained at the
interface indicate a pattern such that it is inversely proportional to the thickness of adhesive layer.
The transverse displacement at interface is found to be
reduced by about 80% for 1.5 mm thick adhesive layer when
compared with that of 0.1 mm thick layer.
Radius of inuence for plastic deformation is found to be
more for the case of thicker adhesive layer. It can be inferred
from this that the zone of plastic deformation increases with
thickness of adhesive layer.

Appendix A. Description of the material models of target and

projectile
See Table A1.

References
[1] Lopez-Puente J, Arias A, Zaera R, Navarro C. The effect of thickness of adhesive
layer on the ballistic limit of ceramic/metal armours. An experimental and
numerical study. Int J Impact Eng 2005;32:32136.
[2] Ubeyli M, Yildirim OR, Bilgehan O. Investigation on the ballistic behavior of
Al2O3/Al2024 laminated composites. J Mater Process Technol 2008;196:
35664.
[3] Zaera R, Sanchez-Saez S, Perez Castellanos, Navarro C. Modelling of adhesive
layers in mixed ceramic/metal armours subjected to impact. Composite Part
A 2000;31:82333.
[4] Kaufmann C, Cronin D, Worswick M, Pageau G, Beth A. Inuence of material
properties on the ballistic performance of ceramics for personal, body
armour. Shock Vib J 2003;10:519.
[5] Prashant K, Tiwari S, Singh RK. Characterization of toughened bonded interface against fracture and impact loads International. J Adhes Adhes
2005;25:52733.
[6] Tekyeh-Marouf B, Bagheri R, Mahmudi R. Effects of number of layers and
adhesive ductility on impact behavior of laminates. Mater Lett 2004;58:
27214.
[7] Vaidya UK, Abhay R, Gautama S, Hosur M, Dutta P. Experimentalnumerical
studies of transverse impact response of adhesively bonded lap joints in
composite structures. Int J Adhes Adhes 2006;26:18498.
[8] Blackman BRK, Kinloch AJ, Sanchez-Rodriguez FS, Teo WS, Williams JG. The
fracture behaviour of structural adhesives under high rates of testing. Eng
Fracture Mech 2009;76:286889.
[9] Carlberger T, Stigh U. An explicit FE-model of impact fracture in an adhesive
joint. Eng Fracture Mech 2007;74:224762.
[10] Mangapatnam A, Parameswaran V. Dynamic strength of adhesive single lap
joints at high temperature. Int J Adhes Adhes 2008;28:3217.
[11] Goglio L, Rossetto M. Impact rupture of structural adhesive joints under
different stress combinations. Int J Impact Eng 2008;35:63543.
[12] Gefu Ji O, Li G, Ibekwe S, Su-Seng P. Effects of adhesive thickness on global
and local Mode-I interfacial fracture of bonded joints. Int J Solids Struct
2010;47:244558.
[13] Brandon DG, Kaplan D. Joining processes: an introduction. UK: John Wiley &
Sons Ltd.; 1997.
[14] Robert Jr WM. Joining of materials and structures: from pragmatic process to
enabling technology. USA: Elsevier ButterworthHeinemann; 2004.
[15] Arenas JM, Julia JN, Cristina A. Optimum adhesive thickness in structural
adhesives joints using statistical techniques based on Weibull distribution.
Int J Adhes Adhes 2010;30:1605.
[16] Packham DE. Handbook of adhesion. 2nd ed. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.;
2005.
[17] Adams RD, Mallick V. A method for the stress analysis of lap joints. J Adhes
1992;38(3):199217.
[18] Bigwood DA, Crocombe AD. Elastic analysis and engineering design formulae
for bonded joints. Int J Adhes Adhes 1989;9(4):22942.

A. Prakash et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 41 (2013) 186197

[19] Grant LDR, Adams RD, da Silva LFM. Experimental and numerical analysis of
single-lap joints for the automotive industry. Int J Adhes Adhes 2009;29(4):
40513.
[20] Kahraman R, Sunar M, Yilbas B. Inuence of adhesive thickness and ller
content on the mechanical performance of aluminium single lap-joints
bonded with aluminium powder lled epoxy adhesive. J Mater Process
Technol 2008;205:1839.
[21] Liao L, Kobayashi T, Sawa T, Goda Y. 3-D FEM stress analysis and strength
evaluation of single-lap adhesive joints subjected to impact tensile loads. Int
J Adhes Adhes 2010;31:61231.
[22] da Silva LFM, Carbas RJC, Critchlowb GW, Figueiredo MAV, Brownc K. Effect
of material geometry, surface treatment and environment on the shear
strength of single lap joints. Int J Adhes Adhes 2009;29(6):62132.
[23] da Silva LFM, TNSS Rodrigues, Figueiredo MAV, de Moura MFSF, Chousal JAG.
Effect of adhesive type and thickness on the lap shear strength. J Adhes
2006;82(11):1091115.

197

[24] Adams RD, Peppiatt NA. Stress analysis of adhesively bonded lap joints. J
Strain Anal Eng 1974;9:18596.
[25] Crocombe AD. Global yielding as a failure criterion for bonded joints. Int J
Adhes Adhes 1989;9(3):14553.
[26] Amar P, Anandavalli N, Rajasankar J, Iyer NR. Response of alumina/aluminium composite target for normal impact of 7.62 AP projectile-numerical
validation. CSIR-SERC, research report no. SVG-NWP029-RR-03. Chennai,
India; 2011.
[27] Lee M, Yoo YH. Analysis of ceramic/metal armour systems. Int J Impact Eng
2001;25:81929.
[28] AUTODYN release 12.1, ANSYS, Inc. Southpointe; 2009.
[29] Holmquist TJ, Johnson GR. Response of silicon carbide to high velocity
impact. J Appl Phys 2002;9:585866.
[30] NIJ Standard-0101.06, Ballistic resistance of body armour. Washington:
National Institute of Justice. /http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nijS; 2006.