Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites OnlineFirst, published on September 8, 2009 as

doi:10.1177/0731684409343727

Behavior of Kevlar/Epoxy Composite Plates

Under Ballistic Impact

SUNIL KUMAR,1,* DURGA SHANKAR GUPTA,2 INDERDEEP SINGH1 AND

APURBBA SHARMA1
1
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, IIT Roorkee
Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India
2
Research & Development, TVS Motor Company, Bangalore, India

ABSTRACT: This study investigates the ballistic response of laminated composite plates using
numerical simulations. Numerical simulations were carried out to determine the ballistic response
of thick Kevlar/epoxy composite plates, commonly used in body armor. These plates were impacted
at velocities between 100 and 1000 m/s. The numerical parametric study of ballistic impact caused by
cylindrical projectile is undertaken to obtain an estimate for the ballistic limit velocity, energy
absorbed by the plate, and the contact duration. The effect of mass and diameter of the projectile
on ballistic limit velocity was also studied. The results obtained hereby are in good agreement with
the experimental data presented by other researchers.

KEY WORDS: Kevlar/epoxy composite, projectile, numerical simulation, impact behavior,

ballistic impact.

INTRODUCTION

OMPOSITE MATERIALS ARE being increasingly used in different engineering fields

C due to their inherently superior mechanical properties such as high strength-to-weight
ratio and high stiffness. These materials have applications in aircraft industry, civil,
mechanical, defense, and other disciplines in which they are subjected to a wide spectrum
of loading during in-service use. Polymer matrix composites (PMCs) are attractive because
they are lighter, stronger, and stiffer than unreinforced polymers or conventional metals,
with the additional advantage that their properties and form can be tailored to meet the
needs of a specific application. High-performance fibers such as carbon, boron, graphite,
and Kevlar are of the highest interest for military and aerospace composite applications
that can be used at high temperatures and resist corrosion better than conventional metals
or plastics. PMCs have been widely adopted in military applications to resist foreign object
impact loading. During ballistic impact, PMC retards the projectile by absorbing its

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: sunil497@gmail.com

Figures 1, 2 and 47 appear in color online: http://jrp.sagepub.com

Journal of REINFORCED PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES, Vol. 0, No. 00/2009 1

0731-6844/09/00 000117 $10.00/0 DOI: 10.1177/0731684409343727
The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
2 S. KUMAR ET AL.

kinetic energy through different mechanisms such as deformation of the composite, dela-
mination, and shear between layers. The condition for perforation, also called ballistic
limit, is certainly the most important factor for designing a suitable protective structure.
It is important to understand the dynamic behavior of composite structures and the
associated damage mechanisms in order to effectively use the composite as a protective
structure.
Significant research has been carried out on the behavior of composite materials under
impact loading. However, works on ballistic impacts, particularly on Kevlar/epoxy com-
posites are still in their infancy. Cantwell and Morton [1] conducted low- and high-velocity
impact tests to examine the perforation process in a carbon fiber reinforced plastic com-
posite and a perforation model had been developed in order to predict the influence of
target thickness and specimen size on the perforation threshold. In thinner laminates a
conical-shaped perforation zone was observed whereas two distinct failure processes were
observed in case of thick laminates. Zhu et al. [2] investigated the response of woven
Kevlar/polyester laminates of varying thicknesses to quasi-static and dynamic penetration
by cylindroconical projectiles. Ballistic limits were also determined and terminal velocities
were measured. It was reported that deliberately introduced delamination and changes in
the volume fraction did not result in significant changes in the impact resistance. The
damage pattern for dynamic loading was, however, quite different from that in the corre-
sponding quasi-static penetration case. Potti and Sun [3] investigated ballistic impact using
a static punch curve as a structural constitutive model to capture the highly non-linear
behavior of thick laminates. The model was shown to predict the penetration process for
short and long projectiles. The delaminated area was shown to increase when the impact
velocity is increased until the ballistic limit, beyond which the delamination area decreases
with an increase in impact velocity. Cheng et al. [4] developed a model for high-velocity
impact on thick composites for predicting the response of thick composite targets. This
model was based on a continuum approach, which was built on the framework of an
orthotropic constitutive behavior with stress-based failure criteria and a simplified degra-
dation model of the failure of composites. The model was implemented into a hydrody-
namic finite element code. Punching, fiber breakage, and delamination were the major
energy-absorbing mechanisms of the penetration processes. Silva et al. [5] have reported
experimental and numerical simulation of ballistic impact on Kevlar 29 impacted with
simulated fragments. Numerical modeling was developed and used to obtain an estimate
for the limit perforation velocity (V50) and simulate failure modes and damage. Good
correlation between computational simulation and experimental results was reported,
both in terms of deformation and damage of the laminates. Tan and Khoo [6] studied
the response of spectra shield laminates to ballistic impacts by projectiles of flat-ended,
hemispherical, ogival (CRH 2.5), and conical (300 half-angle) shapes. Ballistic tests
showed that flat-ended projectiles cut the laminate through a shearing action whereas
hemispherical projectiles perforate the laminates by stretching the spectra filaments to
failure resulting in a rectangular hole in the laminates. On the other hand, ogival and
conical projectiles perforate the laminates with minimal delamination and tearing of the
specimens. The area of the specimens affected by the projectiles appears to increase in size
instead of becoming more localized at higher impact velocities. Naik and Doshi [7] pre-
sented ballistic impact behavior of typical woven fabric E-glass/epoxy thick composites
analytically. Specifically, the energy absorbed by different mechanisms, ballistic limit
velocity, and contact duration were determined. Further, effect of incident impact velocity
on contact duration and residual velocity, effect of projectile diameter and mass on
Behavior of Kevlar/Epoxy Composite Plates Under Ballistic Impact 3

ballistic limit velocity, and effect of target thickness on ballistic limit velocity and con-
tact duration were studied. It was reported that shear plugging is the major energy-absorb-
ing mechanism. Kevlar has the highest energy absorbing capability among a variety of
composites and therefore is the most widely used material in ballistic applications [2].
Ballistic impact behavior of woven fiber Kevlar/epoxy thick composite laminates
while impacted by cylindrical flat ended 4340 steel projectiles is presented in this work.
Effects of projectile velocity, diameter, and mass on the ballistic impact behavior of the
targets are studied using numerical simulation. The simulations are carried out using
ANSYS AUTODYN version 11. Friction and gravity effects are not considered in the
simulations.

THEORY OF BALLISTIC IMPACT

Impacts resulting in complete penetration of the target are often called ballistic
impacts, whereas non-penetrating impacts are called low-velocity impacts [8]. Ballistic
impact is a high-velocity impact event in which low-mass high-velocity projectile
propelled by a source onto a target. Based on the target geometry, material properties
and projectile parameters penetration or perforation may be possible. If the projectiles
initial kinetic energy is less than the energy that the target can absorb then the projec-
tile can either be stuck within the target or rebound. Perforation takes place with cer-
tain residual velocity if the projectiles initial kinetic energy is more than the energy
that target can absorb. When the projectile perforates the target completely with
zero residual velocity then initial velocity of the projectile of a given mass is referred
to as the ballistic limit (VBL) [9]. Since several complex modes are involved in the pen-
etration process and since some degree of variability is always present, the ballistic
limit is often defined as the minimum impact velocity that will result in complete pen-
etration [8].
During the ballistic impact, energy transfer takes place from the projectile to the
target. Polymer composites retard the projectile by absorbing its kinetic energy.
Different mechanisms such as the cone formation on the back face of the target, defor-
mation of secondary yarns, tension in primary yarns/fibers, delamination, matrix crack-
ing, shear plugging, and friction between the projectile and the target do take place
during an impact. Different mechanisms can dominate for different materials like
carbon, glass, or Kevlar. The tensile properties of the fiber, the properties of the
matrix, the arrangement of the fibers in the composite, and the interfacial strength are
the factors that control the energy absorption phenomenon. The residual kinetic energy
of a projectile varies linearly with the initial kinetic energy. Therefore, the energy
required for the perforation of the target is constant and conservation of energy can
be written as (8):
1 1
mP V2P EPF mP V2R 1
2 2
where, mP, VP, and VR are the mass, incident impact velocity, and residual velocity of the
projectile, respectively. EPF is the perforation energy. The above equation indicates
that energy required for perforating the target is independent of projectile velocity.
At ballistic limit, residual velocity of the projectile remains zero. The estimated ballistic
4 S. KUMAR ET AL.

limit velocity (VBL) is then given by following condition:

1 p
EPF mP V2BL ) VBL 2EPF =mP 2
2
Penetration time can be calculated by taking the derivative of the projectile displacement,
ZP with respect to time. Penetration time also can be predicted where the velocity is zero.
Thus, as penetration through the target is complete:
dZP
VP 0 3
dt
Perforation time can be calculated by taking the derivative of the projectile velocity with
respect to time. Then perforation time can be predicted where the acceleration is zero.
dVP
aP 0 4
dt
These relationships have been used in the development of a finite element model in order
to investigate the damage behavior of Kevlar/epoxy target under ballistic impact.

MODELING OF THE COMPOSITE SYSTEM

Numerical Modeling

The experimental analysis of ballistic impact problems is a tedious task. The experi-
mental set-up has a number of control variables as well as the instrumentation
required to capture all the details of the ballistic test is quite expensive. Although a lot
of analysis has been done using the simulation approachstill a lot remains to be done in the
direction of developing authentic models for capturing the inherent characteristics of the
ballistic impact. The codes have been written to simulate the ballistic performance of
isotropic materials. The degree of anisotropy in case of composite materials makes it
imperative to develop dedicated finite element models for investigating their ballistic
characteristics.
The simulations were carried out using commercial hydrocode, ANSYS AUTODYN
version 11.0, a general purpose non-linear dynamics modeling and simulation software,
developed by Century Dynamics. The code uses finite difference, finite element, and
finite volume methods to solve mass, momentum, and energy conservation equations.
The Kevlar/epoxy target plate had the dimensions of 100  100  9.5 mm3. Cylindrical
flat-ended projectiles of 4340 steel in different sizes were used in the study of effect of
different parameters on the ballistic behavior of these plates. Both projectile and the
target were modeled using the Lagrange processor and hexahedron brick elements. As
the structure has symmetry in both the directions, a quarter of the panel as well as the
projectile have been used and the resulting model is shown in Figure 1. Initially,
analysis for a test case was carried out with a number of mesh densities in order to
assess the adequate mesh density for getting a converged solution. A mesh size of
50  50  19 for the quarter plate having higher mesh density near the left lower
corner (point of impact) as shown in Figure 1 (corresponding to the actual plate
center) has been found to be sufficient for the present study. A fixed boundary condi-
tion was used for the top and right sides of the model (Figure 1) corresponding to
Behavior of Kevlar/Epoxy Composite Plates Under Ballistic Impact 5

Figure 1. A quarter numerical model of the projectile and target plate.

actual plate edges while a symmetric boundary condition for the other two sides repre-
senting the line of symmetry.

Material Modeling

In anisotropic materials equation of state and constitutive model are strongly coupled as
volumetric strain leads to deviatoric stress, and similarly deviatoric strain leads to spher-
ical stress. An advanced material model developed by Hayhurst et al. [10] was used to
represent the mechanical response of the composite laminates under large deformation
that couples non-linear constitutive relations with the equation of state. The model can
include compaction and orthotropic brittle failure criteria to detect directional failure such
as delamination. PMCs subject to impact exhibit complex behavior. Failures in ballistic
impact mainly depend on the shape of the projectile. In general shear plugging occurs near
the impacted side, followed by a region in which failure occurs by tensile fiber fracture and
delaminations occur near the exit and both leads to bulk failure. Principal directions 1 and
2 were assumed in-plane directions and direction 3 was taken to coincide with the through-
the-thickness direction. In the current formulation of the composite material model, the
effect of thermal strain was not considered. When failure occurs, materials lose their load-
carrying capacity and to accommodate for that, the properties of the composites change
depending on the type of failure. Failure initiation criterion for Kevlar/epoxy was assumed
to be based on a combination of material stress and strain failure. Tensile failure initiation
can be based on any combination of the material stress and/or strain in the orthotropic
principal material directions. An incremental constitutive relation relating elements of
stress (
rij), strain (
eij), and stiffness (Cij) matrix is given in Equation (5).
Delamination is assumed to result from excessive through-thickness tensile stresses or
6 S. KUMAR ET AL.

strains and/or from excessive shear stresses or strains in the matrix material [5]. In the
incremental constitutive relation:
8 9 2 38 9
>
11 > C11 C12 C13 0 0 0 >
"11 >
> > > >
>
 >
> > 6C
> 7>>
" > >
>
> 22 > 6 21 C22 C23 0 0 0 7>> 22 >
>
>
> >
> 6 7>> >
>
<
33 = 6 C31 C32 C33 0 0 0 7
"33 =
<
6 60
7
7>
" > 5
>
>
>
23 >>
> 6 0 0 C44 0 0 7> 23 >
>
> >
> 6 7>> >
>
>
>
31 >> 40 0 0 0 C55 0 5>
"31 >
>
> >
>
>
: >
; >
: >
;

12 0 0 0 0 0 C66
"12

the stress
r33 normal to the laminate is instantaneously set to zero and the material
stiffness matrix becomes:
8 9 2 38 9
>
11 > C11 C12 0 0 0 0 >
"11 >
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
22 >> 6 7>
"22 >
>
>
> >
> 6
C21 C22 0 0 0 0 7>>
> >
>
<
 >
> = 660 0 0 0 0 0
7>
7
"33 =
< >
33
6
60
7
7>
" > 6
>
 >
23 > 0 0 C44 0 0
>
>
> > 6
> 6
7>
7>> 23 > >
>
>
>
31 >> 40 0 0 0 C55 0 5>>
"31 >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
: ; : ;

12 0 0 0 0 0 C66
"12

Delamination may also result in a reduction in shear stiffness of composite material via
parameter a, which ranges between 0.0 and 1.0. In-plane failure is assumed to result from
excessive stresses and/or strains in the 11- or 22-directions. If failure is initiated from these
two modes, the stress in the failed direction is instantaneously set to zero. For example, for
22-direction failure the post failure stiffness matrix becomes:
8 9 2 38 9
>
11 > C11 0 C13 0 0 0 >
"11 >
>
> >
> 6 >
> >
>
>
>
>
22 >>
> 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7>
7 >
>
"22 > >
>
>
> >
> 6 7 >
> >
>
<
 = 6 C 7
"33 =
<
33 31 0 C33 0 0 0
66 7 7
>
23 > 7>
" >
>
> >
> 60 0 0 C44 0 0 7>> 23 >
>
>
> > 6
> 7>> >
>
> > 40 5> >
>
31 >
>
: >
;
0 0 0 C55 0 >
"31 >
>
: >
;

12 0 0 0 0 0 C66
"12

Finally, the combined effect of failure in all three material directions results in a material
that can only sustain hydrostatic pressure. All the simulations were performed on woven
Kevlar/epoxy composite target plates. The 4340 steel was represented using the Johnson-
Cook strength model and failure model, which include strain and strain rate hardening
effects. Material data for Kevlar/epoxy target [11] and 4340 steel [12] projectile are shown
in Table 1.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Ballistic impact behavior of typical woven fiber Kevlar/epoxy plate was studied.
The target plates were clamped and projectile collided onto the center of the plate.
Behavior of Kevlar/Epoxy Composite Plates Under Ballistic Impact 7

Table 1. Material details of Kevlar/epoxy target and 4340 steel.

Woven Kevlar/epoxy
Equation of states: Orthotropic
Sub-equation of states: Polynomial
Reference density (g/cm3): 1.65
Youngs modulus 11 (kPa): 1.798900E + 007
Youngs modulus 22 (kPa): 1.798900E + 007
Youngs modulus 33 (kPa): 1.948000E + 006
Poisons ratio: 12 0.08000
Poisons ratio: 23 0.69800
Poisons ratio: 31 0.07560
Strength: Elastic
Shear modulus (kPa): 1.857010E + 06
Failure: Material stress/strain
Tensile failure stress 11 (kPa): 1.85000E + 006
Tensile failure stress 22 (kPa): 1.85000E + 006
Tensile failure stress 33 (kPa): 1.20000E + 006
Maximum shear stress 12 (kPa): 7.7000E + 004
Maximum shear stress 23 (kPa): 5.4300E + 005
4340 steel
Equation of states: Linear
Reference density (g/cm3): 7.8300
Bulk modulus (kPa): 1.59E + 08
Reference temperature (K): 300
Specific heat capacity: (J/kg K) 477
Strength: Johnson-Cook
Shear modulus (kPa): 7.700E + 07
Equation of states: Linear
Reference density (g/cm3): 7.8300
Yield stress (kPa): 7.92E + 05
Hardening constant (kPa): 5.10E + 05
Maximum shear stress 31 (kPa): 5.4300E + 005
Tensile failure strain 11: 0.06000
Tensile failure strain 22: 0.06000
Tensile failure strain 33: 0.02000
Maximum shear strain 12: 1.0000E + 020
Maximum shear strain 23: 1.0100E + 020
Maximum shear strain 31: 1.0100E + 020
Post failure response: Orthotropic
Fail 11 & 11 only
Fail 22 & 22 only
Fail 33 & 33 only
Fail 12 & 12 and 11 only
Fail 23 & 23 and 11 only
Fail 31 & 12 and 11 only
Residual shear stiff. fract. 0.20
Erosion: Instantaneous geometric strain
Erosion strain 1.2
Hardening exponent: 0.26
Strain rate constant: 0.014
Thermal softening exponent: 1.03
Melting temperature (K): 1793
Failure: Johnson-Cook
Damage constant, D1: 0.05000
Damage constant, D2: 3.44000
Damage constant, D3: 2.12000
Damage constant, D4: 0.00200
Damage constant, D5: 0.61000

The thickness of plate in all the cases was 9.5 mm. The model produced detailed time
history results for every requested variable. Of particular interest were velocity of the
projectile, variation of energy absorbed by the plate, damage behavior, and projectile
deformation with respect to time. The computation results are presented and discussed
in this section.

Effect of Incident Impact Velocity on the Ballistic Behavior

In order to investigate the behavior of target plate at different velocities, simulations

were performed in the velocity range of 1001000 m/s. Steel projectile used for this study
was cylindrical-shaped flat-ended having 10 mm length and diameter with a mass of 6.15 g.
The projectiles energy decreases during the ballistic impact as the energy is absorbed by
the target by different mechanisms resulting retardation of the projectile. Figure 2 depicts
the variation of different projectile velocities with respect to time. Incident impact velocity
100 m/s is very less to perforate the target plate and it becomes zero at 0.0795 ms and the
8 S. KUMAR ET AL.

1000
900

Incident impact velocity (m/s)

800
100 m/s
700 140 m/s
177 m/s
600 178 m/s
300 m/s
500 500 m/s
1000 m/s
400
300
200
100
0

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

Time (ms)

Figure 2. Variation of the projectile velocity with time.

projectile reverts back around after 0.15 ms with the negative velocity as shown in
Figure 2.
Similar result is observed at velocity of 140 m/s but at this velocity the projectile takes
more time to change its direction. At the velocity of 177 m/s projectile also reverts back
with small negative velocity.
With further increase in incident impact velocity to 178 m/s projectile perforates the
target at 0.2702 ms with residual velocity of 5.79 m/s. Thus, for the given targetprojectile
combination the ballistic limit is found to be 178 m/s. Naik and Doshi [7] developed an
analytical model to predict the ballistic limit velocity for fiber-reinforced plastics. The
ballistic limit velocity predicted for e-glass epoxy composites was found to be in the
range of 142.5559.112 m/s. The range of ballistic limit velocity for experimental findings
was noted as 148563 m/s. The results have been found by varying the mass and the
diameter of the projectile as well as the target thickness. The ballistic limit velocity
found out as a result of the present investigation is well within the range. Moreover, the
present research endeavor has focused on Kevlar fiber reinforced epoxy which is predo-
minantly used in impact resistant applications.
With the increase in incident impact velocity the contact duration increases until ballistic
limit and was maximum for ballistic limit because projectile travels more distance. Further
increasing the velocity after ballistic limit, contact duration reduces as projectile travels at
higher velocity and takes less time to pass through the thickness of the target. As seen in
Figure 2, the perforation time for velocity of 1000 m/s is minimum. Contact duration as a
function of incident impact velocity is presented in Figure 3.
Similar observations were made by Naik and Doshi [7] in their analytical work.
With the increase in incident impact velocity, residual velocity also increases and a
linear relationship exists. Figure 4 shows the curve between incident impact velocity and
residual velocity. A sudden increase in the residual velocity can be seen just after the
ballistic limit velocity. Similar observations were also made in few experimental investiga-
tions [2,3].
Behavior of Kevlar/Epoxy Composite Plates Under Ballistic Impact 9

0.30
Mass of projectile: 6.15 g
Projectile diameter: 10 mm

Penetration/perfection time (ms)

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Incident impact velocity (m/s)

Figure 3. Contact duration as a function of incident impact velocity.

1000
Mass of projectile: 6.15 g
Projectile diameter: 10 mm
800
Residual velocity (m/s)

600

400

200

0 Residual velocity vs incident impact velocity

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Incident impact velocity (m/s)

Figure 4. Residual velocity as a function of incident impact velocity.

The kinetic energy of the projectile is transferred to the target after the impact conse-
quently the target energy gets increased and a part of projectile energy gets used for
deformation of the projectile. Distribution of kinetic, internal, and total energy of the
target and projectile at different incident impact velocities (100, 178, 1000 m/s) with respect
to time are shown in Figure 5(a)(c).
In all the above cases it is observed that the kinetic energy of the projectile reduces at a
faster rate at which internal energy of the target plate increases. Figure 5(a) shows the
energy distribution a incident impact velocity of 100 m/s. In Figure 5(a) after time 0.15 ms
there is increase in kinetic energy of the projectile because at this velocity projectile did not
perforate the target and after impact it reverts back.
10 S. KUMAR ET AL.

(a)
40

30

Projectile total energy

Projectile Kinetic energy

Energy (J)
20 Projectile internal energy
Target total energy
Target kinetic energy
Target internal energy
10

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Time (ms)
(b)
160

140
120
100 Projectile total energy
Energy (J)

Projectile Kinetic energy

Projectile internal energy
80 Target total energy
Target kinetic energy
60 Target internal energy

40
20
0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Time (ms)
(c)
3500
Projectile total energy
Projectile Kinetic energy
3000 Projectile internal energy
Target total energy
Target kinetic energy
2500 Target internal energy

2000
Energy (J)

1500

1000

500

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

Time (ms)

Figure 5. Energy profile with respect to time at incident impact velocity of: (a) 100 m/s, (b) 178 m/s,
(c) 1000 m/s.
Behavior of Kevlar/Epoxy Composite Plates Under Ballistic Impact 11

Change in internal energy of the projectile is much less and is constant most of the time
because contact duration is small. Target plate absorbs energy as internal and kinetic
energy. Increase in internal energy of the target plate is more than the increase in kinetic
energy of the plate. Figure 5(b) shows the energy variation at velocity 178 m/s, which is the
ballistic limit velocity for the target plate. Contact duration is more in this case and energy
transfer takes place for more time correspondingly significant rise in kinetic energy and
total energy of the target plate can be seen. The same reason is valid for continuous
increase in projectile internal energy. Energy variation for the impact velocity of
1000 m/s is shown in Figure 5(c).
As the incident impact velocity was very high as compared to ballistic limit velocity and
projectile perforates the target in 0.0166 ms. Up to this time decrease in projectile kinetic
energy and increase in internal energy can be seen in the Figure 5(c). After perforation high
kinetic and total energy in the projectile can be seen as incident impact velocity was very
high and only a small part was conserved. In this case the gain in kinetic energy of the
target plate is more than the gain in internal energy and can be clearly seen. It can be
concluded that with the increase in the projectile velocity after ballistic limit velocity,
deflection of the target increases as a result kinetic energy of the target increases and
becomes the major energy absorption mechanism.

Damage Behavior of the Kevlar/Epoxy Target Plate

Temporal evolution of the damage sustained by the target plate caused by projectile is
shown in Figure 6. The ballistic impact event can be divided into three stages [7]. During
the first stage the projectile strikes to the target and compression of the target takes place
directly below the projectile face, as the projectile progresses, the material would flow
along the thickness direction. The further movement of the projectile because of compres-
sion and failure of the target leads to bulge formation on the back face. This stage is called
second stage. During the third stage, plug and the projectile exit from the back face of the
target as the projectile moves further. At ballistic limit velocity of 178 m/s all the three
stages can be seen in Figure 6(a)(e).
Figure 7 shows the damage in the composite target plate caused by the projectile at the
ballistic limit velocity of 178 m/s. It can be observed very clearly that the damage takes
place by tensile failure of the matrix, matrix-fiber de-bonding, and the bulk failure of the
fibers and the matrix.
As the Johnson-Cook failure model has been used for the projectile material, deforma-
tions were observed in the shape of the projectile. Deformation is high at higher
velocities as shown in Table 2. The length of projectile has decreases and diameter
increased as an ellipse shape. The reason for this deformation may be attributed to
the orthotropic properties of the target plate. A summary of results of simulations are
tabulated in Table 3.

Effect of Projectile Mass on the Ballistic Behavior

In order to investigate the effect of projectile mass on the ballistic limit velocity (VBL),
the target plate was tested with six projectiles of different masses having same diameter of
12 S. KUMAR ET AL.

Figure 6. Temporal evolution of the damage at velocity of 178 m/s at time (t): (a) t = 0.0095 ms,
(b) t = 0.1674 ms, (c) t = 0.3146 ms, (d) t = 0.3435 ms, (e) t = 0.3930 ms.
Behavior of Kevlar/Epoxy Composite Plates Under Ballistic Impact 13

Figure 7. Directional failure of the target plate at ballistic limit velocity: (a) front of plate and (b) back of plate.

Table 2. Damage behavior of projectile at different incident impact velocities.

Incident impact velocity, (m/s) 250 300 500 1000

Deformation of projectile

Change in length (
L) mm 0.06 0.08 0.24 0.93

Change in diameter (
DX) mm 0.78 0.96 1.90 2.62
Change in diameter (
DY) mm 0.14 0.22 0.72 2.08

10 mm. Projectiles used were cylindrical shaped with flat end. Mass was increased by
increasing the length of the projectiles. Same material and dimensions were used for
target plate as mentioned earlier. The description of the projectiles and simulation results
are presented in Table 4. The effect of projectile mass on the ballistic limit is illustrated in
Figure 8. The characteristic clearly shows that the ballistic limit velocity decreases with the
increase in mass of the projectile while keeping the diameter constant. This is attributed to
the increased energy of the projectile.

Effect of Projectile Diameter on the Ballistic Behavior

The effect of projectile diameter on ballistic limit velocity (VBL) of the target was also
studied. For this study four cylindrical-shaped flat-ended projectiles with increasing diam-
eter and having same mass of 6.15 g were used in simulations. Same material was used for
projectile and the target plate parameters were also maintained constant. The description
 14

Table 3. Post impact damage properties of Kevlar/epoxy plate and steel projectile.

Incident Changes in projectile Remarks

impact Initial kinetic Residual Perforation Depth of Penetration dimensions (mm) (Deflection of
velocity energy of velocity time penetration time plate, penetration,
(m/s) projectile (J) (m/s) (ms) (mm) (ms) "L "DX "DY perforation)

100 30.75 No residual velocity 0.15 0.0795 0.01 0.18 0.00 2.42 ()
130 51.96 produced in these cases, 0.37 0.0831 0.01 0.30 0.04 3.32 ()
140 60.27 the projectile will returned 0.80 0.0875 0.01 0.36 0.02 Penetration
150 69.18 back or produced 0.82 0.1353 0.02 0.42 0.02 Penetration
170 88.86 penetration. 5.12 0.1763 0.02 0.68 0.02 Penetration
172 90.97 6.02 0.1777 0.02 0.50 0.04 Penetration
177 96.33 7.41 0.2017 0.03 0.62 0.06 Penetration
178 97.43 5.79 0.2702 Projectile perforates 0.03 0.58 0.10 Perforation
179 98.53 22.78 0.2141 with residual velocity 0.03 0.50 0.08 Perforation
200 123.00 72.83 0.1329 0.05 0.64 0.12 Perforation
250 192.19 123.66 0.0753 0.06 0.78 0.14 Perforation
300 276.75 188.41 0.0601 0.08 0.96 0.22 Perforation
400 492.00 285.13 0.0279 0.17 1.24 0.40 Perforation
500 768.75 363.37 0.0241 0.24 1.90 0.72 Perforation
1000 3075.00 811.21 0.0166 0.93 2.62 2.08 Perforation

 = Deflection of plate (mm).

S. KUMAR
ET AL.
Behavior of Kevlar/Epoxy Composite Plates Under Ballistic Impact 15

Table 4. Ballistic limit velocity prediction for constant

projectile diameter with increasing mass.

Ballistic limit
Projectile Projectile velocity (VBL)
Projectile length (mm) mass (g) (m/s)

Projectile 1 10 6.15 178.00

Projectile 2 11 6.76 165.00
Projectile 3 12 7.38 152.00
Projectile 4 13 7.99 149.50
Projectile 5 14 8.61 146.00
Projectile 6 15 9.22 142.50

180
Projectile diameter: 10 mm
Ballistic limit velocity (VB L )(m/s)

175
170
165

160

155

150

145

140
5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5
Projectile mass (g)

Figure 8. Ballistic limit velocity vs. projectile mass.

Table 5. Ballistic limit velocity prediction for constant mass

with increasing diameter.

Projectile Projectile Ballistic limit

Projectile diameter (mm) length (mm) velocity (VBL) (m/s)

Projectile 1 6 27.77 145.50

Projectile 2 8 15.62 157.00
Projectile 3 10 10.00 178.00
Projectile 4 12 6.944 193.00

of the projectiles and simulation results are shown in Table 5. The change in the ballistic
limit velocity with projectile diameter is presented in Figure 9. It is seen that keeping the
mass constant, and increase in the diameter of the projectile, increases the ballistic limit
velocity for the Kevlar/epoxy composite target plate. Similar observations for effect of
diameter and mass on ballistic limit velocity on E-glass/epoxy composites were reported by
Naik and Doshi [7].
16 S. KUMAR ET AL.

200
Projectile diameter: 6.15 g

Ballistic limit velocity (VB L )(m/s)

190

180

170

160

150

140
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Projectile diameter (mm)

Figure 9. Ballistic limit velocity vs. projectile diameter.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Ballistic impact characteristics of Kevlar/epoxy plate of 9.5 mm thickness were inves-
tigated. The ballistic limit velocity with the projectile of 6.15 g mass and 10 mm length
and diameter projectile was found to be 178 m/s.
(2) The damage behavior of the plate indicated delamination, fiber matrix debonding, and
matrix failure as the possible modes of material damage. Local deformation and shear
plugging are the major energy absorption mechanisms in impact perforation.
(3) The contact duration also plays an important role. It increases as the incident impact
velocity increases up to the ballistic limit velocity and decreases thereafter. Therefore
the damage mechanisms found in the Kevlar/epoxy plate vary before and after the
ballistic limit velocity.
(4) Residual velocity depends upon the incident impact velocity. Residual velocity
increases as the incident impact velocity increases.
(5) The ballistic limit velocity of the Kevlar/epoxy plate decreases with the increase in
mass of the projectile when the diameter of the projectile is kept constant.
(6) As the diameter of the projectile increases the ballistic limit velocity for the Kevlar/
epoxy plate increases.
(7) The internal energy of the Kevlar/epoxy plate increases after being struck by the
projectile. It was observed that even at low velocity of 100 m/s, the internal energy
had increased after the collision. It can be concluded that the damage is not only done
when the projectile penetrates or perforates the plate but some sub-surface damage
(not visible) might develop because of the impact loading as the plate absorbs energy
in the form of internal energy.

REFERENCES

1. Cantwell, W. J. and Morton, J. (1990). Impact Perforation of Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic, Composite
Science and Technology, 38: 119141.
2. Zhu, G., Goldsmith, W. and Dharan, C. K. H. (1992). Penetration of Laminated Kevlar by Projectiles1.
Experimental Investigation, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 29: 399420.
Behavior of Kevlar/Epoxy Composite Plates Under Ballistic Impact 17

3. Potti, S. V. and Sun, C. T. (1997). Prediction of Impact Induced Penetration and Delamination in Thick
Composite Laminates, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 19: 3148.
4. Cheng, W. L., Langlie, S. and Itoh, S. (2003). High Velocity Impact of Thick Composite, International
Journal of Impact Engineering, 29: 167184.
5. Silva, M. A. G., Cismasiu, C. and Chiorean, C. G. (2005). Numerical Simulation of Ballistic Impact on
Composite Laminates, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 31: 289306.
6. Tan, V. B. C. and Khoo, K. J. L. (2005). Perforation of Flexible Laminates by Projectile of Different
Geometry, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 31: 793810.
7. Naik, N. K. and Doshi, A. V. (2008). Ballistic Impact Behavior of Thick Composites: Parametric Studies,
Composite Structures, 82: 447464.
8. Abrate, S. (1998). Impact on Composite Structures, 1st edn, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.
9. Naik, N. K., Shrirao, P. and Reddy, B. C. K. (2005). Ballistic Impact Behaviour of Woven Fabric
Composites: Parametric Studies, Materials Science and Engineering A, 412: 104116.
10. Hayhurst, C. J., Livingstone, I. H. G., Clegg, R. A., Destefanis, R. and Faraud, M. (2001). Ballistic Limit
Evaluation of Advanced Shielding using Numerical Simulations, International Journal of Impact Engineering,
26: 309320.
11. Tham, C. Y., Tan, V. B. C. and Lee, H. P. (2008). Ballistic Impact of a KEVLAR Helmet: Experimental
and Simulations, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 35: 304318.
12. Johnson, G. R. and Cook, W. H. (1985). Fracture Characteristics of Three Metals Subjected to Various
Strains, Strains Rates, Temperature and Pressure, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 21: 3148.