1

Running Head: DEPLOYABLE BALLISTIC-RESISTANT SHIELD

Deployable Ballistic-Resistant Shield

Noah Martin

Harrison High School

December 2018
 2
Running Head: DEPLOYABLE BALLISTIC-RESISTANT SHIELD

Abstract

To combat the ongoing issue of school safety, I asked: How can I effectively and

affordably protect students from harm in case of a break in? My goal was to create a device to be

used should a shooting occur. I tested a variety of different ballistic materials. These included

plastic composites and high strength fabric. Each material plate was tested against a Ruger 556

AR15 rifle and a 9mm pistol. My hypothesis was that none of the materials I tested would inhibit

the rifle round. This is because the pointed shape of a rifle round pierces through almost all

lightweight armor. I determined that a combination of the plastic-type materials would be the

most efficient based on weight, affordability, and capacity to stop a bullet. Next, I constructed a

half scale model of a school door and began construction on a prototype. The model is made of

substitute materials. I refrained from using the real material because of cost. It consists of a top

storage unit which contains a folded-up shield. The shield drops down after a teacher pulls the

bottom out, and it attaches to hooks installed at the bottom of the door and doorframe. This

secures the door so that if one were to shoot out the lock, it still would not budge. It also keeps

the shield taut. The device hasn’t been tested thoroughly, as it is mostly to show the mechanics

of the device. A full-size model would be constructed and tested comprehensively in future

experiments.
 3
Running Head: DEPLOYABLE BALLISTIC-RESISTANT SHIELD

Deployable Ballistic-Resistant Shield

In recent years, the threat of active shooter situations in American schools has become an

increasingly major concern. Public awareness and worry regarding the issue has risen immensely

in the wake of incidents like Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Virginia Tech, and many others.

These instances are all heartbreaking, and something needs to be done to prevent further tragedy

in the future. Others have attempted to absolve the issue by amending gun laws and regulations.

Regardless of whether they are effective or not, it is doubtful that these laws would be

implemented in a timely manner. In an effort to obviate another tragedy, a senior at a Wisconsin

high school developed a device that latches under an inward swinging door’s door jamb. This

keeps it from being opened, even if the lock is shot out. While this invention is immensely

helpful, it does not account for doors that swing outward, which is a problem that my school and

many other schools face. So in an attempt to help protect myself and my peers in case of such an

atrocity, I began to develop my device: the DBRS, the Deployable Ballistic-Resistant Shield.

The first step in creating the door barricade shield I had in mind was finding the correct

material. I tested a variety of ballistic fabrics, epoxies, and plastics. The materials tested were

chosen based on varying qualities such as weight, thickness, cost, and most importantly, the

ability to stop a bullet. With the assistance of the very helpful people at the Governor’s Gun

Club, each type of material was tested against a Ruger 556 AR15 style rifle and a 9mm pistol.

Once I decided which material was to be used, I built a half scale model of a school door and

constructed my prototype around that. This was mainly because of cost constraints and the fact

that I am not allowed to build and test on an actual school door.

 4
Running Head: DEPLOYABLE BALLISTIC-RESISTANT SHIELD

From my testing, it can be concluded that the DBRS has incredible potential in the field

of school safety. The device serves a couple purposes. As shown in experimentation, the

polycarbonate and polymethylmethacrylate (Acrylic type plastic) combination plates have the

ability to stop and capture 9mm pistol rounds and hypothetically, shotgun rounds. The bar latch

system at the base of the door solves the problem of securing an outward swinging door. This

means that even if a shooter decided to shoot the existing lock out, they would still have great

difficulty getting the door open at all. The DBRS also prevents shooters from being able to use

the large floor-to-ceiling glass panes to get into the classroom. After breaking through the glass,

they would be met with significant obstruction. The previously mentioned bar lock would

prevent them from reaching through the broken glass and opening the door from the inside. The

entire contraption could potentially supply life-saving minutes. The longer the shooter spends

trying to get into any one classroom, the more time the authorities have to get to the school and

apprehend them. The polycarbonate and polymethylmethacrylate sheets are NOT able to stop a

shot from an AR15. None of the materials I tested were able to stop the bullet (.223 Remington,

shot from a Ruger 556 rifle). While AR15’s are made out to be an incredibly popular gun among

active shooters, over 70% of active shooters actually use handguns and shotguns. So while the

materials would not be able to solve for the worst case scenario, it would be able to solve for the

most likely scenario.

Literature Review

The subject of school safety and how to better protect students from an armed aggressor

has been a hotly debated topic in recent years. Many have theorized or come up with devices that

are designed to improve safety. In “Offender and Offence Characteristics of School Shooting

Incidents,” the researchers analyzed 28 cases of school shootings and determined the frequency
 5
Running Head: DEPLOYABLE BALLISTIC-RESISTANT SHIELD

of many different factors regarding the attacker. They found that attacks were “primarily well

planned, involved more than three deaths, and resulted in the offender committing suicide”

(Gerard, F. J., Whitfield, K. C., Porter, L. E., et al, 2015). Though the researchers were successful in

determining common factors among the shootings, they did not propose any suggestions on how

to use that information beyond Potential risk assessment. The findings were interesting, but not

very useful. A similar topic was analyzed in “Putting a Band-Aid on a Bullet Wound: Why Gun

Legislation Targeting Individuals With Mental Illness Isn’t Working” (Bramble 2014). The

researcher also looked at multiple examples of shootings and concluded that the majority of

shooters were mentally ill or extremely distressed in one way or another: “Regardless of whether

the goal is to make the federal background check system workable in the context of gun

legislation or to simply help the at risk individuals and their families receive the care that they

need, the solution is the same: improve the country’s mental health treatment system”(Bramble

2014). The researcher discovered a common thread in the shootings and proposed a solution. The

data has many practical applications, none of which were suggested in the article.

The science of ballistic resistant materials has great potential in school safety. In

“Simulation and Experimental Tests of Ballistic Impact on Composite Laminate Armor”

(Soydan, S. M., Bahdir, T., & Sari, A. K., 2018), for example, the researchers studied different

materials to determine ballistic resistance. The study was not based on school shootings or

protection in that regard, but has countless possible implementations in the field. The scientists

found out that “a fiber cement layer of 8mm thickness, Kevlar 29 layer of 2.4mm total thickness,

and steel 1006 plate of 3mm thickness can stop a 9mm FMJ bullet with only slight deformation”

(Soydan, S. M., Bahdir, T., & Sari, A. K., 2018). Such a durable, thin fabric could be implemented

in many facets of safety in schools. From covering windows to bulletproofing everyday items
 6
Running Head: DEPLOYABLE BALLISTIC-RESISTANT SHIELD

like backpacks to be used as shields, as many others have proposed. This technology could be

used in my prototype.

Many have proposed possible solutions to these problems in the form of governmental

acts, some beneficial and some not. The article: “The Claire Davis School Safety Act: Why

Threat Assessments in Schools Will Not Help Colorado” speaks about a certain act put in place

and why it’s not beneficial to student safety (DiRenzo 2016). The act allows students or faculty

harmed in acts of school violence to sue the school district in which the violence occurred. The

researcher believes that this act will be ineffective because the act puts pressure on schools to

keep a watchlist of potential aggressors based on invalid attributes. These include grades, social

status, mental health, etc. She goes on to explain “how alternatives to the School Safety Act,

including passing gun regulation legislation and strengthening school climate within schools,

both of which can help create a safe environment for students without producing the negative

effects of the School Safety Act” (DiRenzo 2016). Like the previous study regarding mental

health, the article “Learning in Lockdown: School Police, Race, and the Limits of Law”

examines security measures that have been implemented in schools in the past and explains why

those are ineffective and perhaps detrimental to students’ psyche (Sussman 2012). The

researcher highlights the practices used to make schools safer, such as metal detectors, random

searches, and increased police presence. He claims: “School criminalization and NYPD-like

practices are providing the push that often leads students of color on to the track toward prison or

a life of unrealized potential. Preventing this push by ending specific school police practices may

indeed divert many students to a more promising future” (Sussman 2012). The more we make

our schools like prisons, the more our students will act like delinquents. A less noticeable,

effective safety measure should be developed.

 7
Running Head: DEPLOYABLE BALLISTIC-RESISTANT SHIELD

Method

To combat the ongoing issue of school safety, I asked myself, “How can I effectively and

affordably protect students from harm in case of a break in?” My hypothesis being: If I can

successfully create an affordable, working device, then I will be able to protect students from

armed aggressors. I designed a prototype of a device that is capable of covering the door as well

as the floor to ceiling glass panels that are next to virtually every door in my high school. The

device would be bolted to the concrete above the window panel, with a second locking

mechanism attached to the base of the door. The top device would contain a weighted, folded up

ballistic-resistant material that, when released, would be hooked into the bottom locking

mechanism. This would keep attackers from breaking the glass and reaching into the room to

open the door from the outside. My procedure goes as follows:

1. Hypothesize possible designs for the device.

2. Research potential candidates for materials.

3. Purchase materials and glue/epoxies.

4. Create two 4x4” panels of each type/combination of material. Record thickness and

number of layers (If applicable).

5. Determine which guns to use in testing based on statistical trends in school shootings.

6. Test each panel and carefully record results. Note fraying or warping of material, number

of layers penetrated, and other observations.

7. Determine best material to use based on cost, weight, and bullet penetration.

8. Build a half scale model prototype of the device using substitute materials (i.e. Normal

fabric instead of UHMWPE, wood instead of plastics).

 8
Running Head: DEPLOYABLE BALLISTIC-RESISTANT SHIELD

Possible safety concerns:

 Use of power tools. I.e. rotary saw, and electric drill.

 Inhalation of potentially toxic chemicals from epoxy and glue.

 Shards of plastic and wood flying around when cutting materials.

Safety equipment needed:

 Latex gloves

 Face mask

 Safety goggles

 Long sleeved clothing and closed toed shoes

 Assistance of an experienced adult when cutting/drilling materials

Some engineering challenges I encountered included designing a durable locking

mechanism. This was solved by implementing the bar lock system. I also was met with the

challenge of finding a bulletproof material that was flexible enough to be rolled up. This ended

up being near impossible, and even if it were, it would be far too expensive to implement. To

combat this, I developed a folded up, accordion-like design. It is a series of bulletproof plates

that fold up in the storage container. Another issue I found was the fact that most ballistic grade

armors cannot stop a rifle round. I considered AR-500 steel, an incredibly durable material that is

used in bulletproof vests and targets to stop rifle rounds. The major issue with implementing

steel into the design is the fact that in order to cover the appropriate area at ½” thickness, it

would weigh over 1000lbs. This problem has yet to be solved. While I accomplished many of my

engineering goals, I was still met with a couple seemingly unsolvable problems. I hope to

attempt to solve these problems and possibly improve on current solutions in the future.
 9
Running Head: DEPLOYABLE BALLISTIC-RESISTANT SHIELD

Data Analysis

In order to create an effective final product, I needed to determine the best ballistic

material to use. After copious amounts of research, I found a few materials that were promising.

I used Polycarbonate plastic, Polymethylmethacrylate (Acrylic-like plastic), and ultra-high

molecular weight polyethylene (Fabric material). I conducted 11 total tests, 2 for each material

type, each shot with either a Ruger 556 AR15 style rife with .223 Remington ammo, or a 9mm

pistol from 5 yards away. The 7th test was a combination of the leftover materials I had left after

making the first 10. This was tested against the AR15. My hypothesis regarding the tests was that

none of the materials would stop the rifle ammo, but tests two, four, five, and 9 would all stop

the 9mm.

Tests 1/2 Tests 3/4 Tests 5/6 Test 7 Tests 8/9 Tests 10/11
PC* ¼” 64 layers of PC* ¼” PC ½” PC* ¼” 64 layers of
+ UHMWPE*** + + + UHMWPE
PMMA** ¼” (Non-epoxied) PMMA ¼” PMMA ½” PMMA ¼” (Epoxied)
+ + + +
PC ¼” PC ¼” PC ½” PC ¼”
+ +
35 layers of PMMA ¼”
UHMWPE +
(Epoxied) PC ¼”

1” Total ½” Total 1 ¾” Total 1 ½” Total 1 ½” Total 1” Total

*PC = Polycarbonate
** PMMA = Polymethylmethacrylate (Acrylic-like material)
*** UHMWPE = Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene

The first test was a 1” thick polycarbonate/acrylic combination. Against the AR15, it

didn’t fare well. The bullet sliced directly through the panel, leaving a very small entry hole, but

significantly larger exit hole. There was much cracking throughout the plate. It did much better

with the pistol however. The bullet penetrated the first layer of polycarbonate and the layer of
 10
Running Head: DEPLOYABLE BALLISTIC-RESISTANT SHIELD

acrylic, but not the final layer of polycarbonate. Other notable occurrences include the fact that

the glue failed to work, and the layers split apart.

Fig. 1 Fig. 2

Test 1, shot by AR15. Entry and exit holes, left to right, respectively.

The second test consisted of UHMWPE fabric, a material that is supposedly stronger than

Kevlar. I did not test Kevlar in my experimentation, so that is yet to be proven by myself.

Against the AR15, the bullet penetrated 64 layers of the stuff like a hot knife through butter,

barely leaving an entry or exit hole. There was no fraying visible at all, just a hole. It was,

however, able to stop the 9mm pistol round. The bullet was completely stopped, and surprisingly

only penetrated 10-12 layers before coming to a stop. There was significant warping of the

material as seen in figure 3.

 11
Running Head: DEPLOYABLE BALLISTIC-RESISTANT SHIELD

Fig. 3

Test 4, 9mm bullet completely captured.

The plates used in tests five and six were a combination of the previous two materials.

Plates identical to ones used in tests one and two were glued to 35 layers of epoxied UHMWPE.

As expected, this one failed to stop the AR15 round, but succeeded against the pistol round (A

common thread among the tests). Like tests one and two, the bullet only penetrated the first two

layers of material.

Fig 4 Fig 5

Test 5, shot by AR15. Entry and exit holes, left to right, respectively. Significant fraying and

warping at exit wound, clean entry.

 12
Running Head: DEPLOYABLE BALLISTIC-RESISTANT SHIELD

Test seven was rather unremarkable. This test is an outlier because the plate type was

only tested against the AR15. It was unable to stop the bullet but came very close, warping the

final layer of polycarbonate in a sort of “reverse volcano” shape. I theorize that the near success

of this test is a result of the higher concentration of polycarbonate than the other models.

Tests eight and nine consisted of plates that were essentially a 1.5x thicker version of

tests one and two. The AR15 yet again did not treat this plate type well. It left a clean entry

point, and an extremely large, explosive exit point. The 9mm round was stopped like all the other

tests involving the plastics. It only made it through the first layer of polycarbonate and acrylic.

Test nine exhibited a couple interesting characteristics. The bullet did not make it to the final

layer of polycarbonate, but the layer was still cracked. This is because the force hitting the

acrylic transferred to the polycarbonate when it was shot.

Fig. 6

Test 9, shot by 9mm. Right: first layer of polycarbonate. Center: Acrylic. Right: Rest of plate,

untouched

The final two tests consisted of 64 layers of epoxied UHMWPE fabric. Like all other

tests, the material failed against the rifle round. The 9mm round, test 11, was a bit odd. The first
 13
Running Head: DEPLOYABLE BALLISTIC-RESISTANT SHIELD

shot hit the very edge of the plate and exhibited considerate fraying, but the second shot hit the

lower center of the plate. The bullet appeared to have changed direction around 12-16 layers in,

going directly downward. It exited out the bottom without making it through the rest of the plate,

and all remaining layers were warped and bent from the impact. I determined this test to be

inconclusive because the first shot compromised the plate and the second shot hit too low to

determine accurate effects.

Fig. 7

Test 11. Significant fraying and warping at sides due to missed shots.

Discussion

My hypothesis was partly correct. Each material tested failed against the AR15, as

predicted. This is largely due to the way the ammo is shaped. Its pointed tip and incredibly high

velocity allow it to pierce through most, if not all lightweight armor. I was incorrect about the

9mm rounds. The non-epoxied UHMWPE fared much better than the epoxied. I theorize that this

is due to the extra space and flexibility. The 1” thick PC+PMMA was also very successful,

contrary to my hypothesis. In every test that included the PC+PMMA combination, the 9mm

round only made it through one layer or PC, and one layer of PMMA. It can be concluded that

this makes the variant used in tests 1 and 2 actually very promising for use in the DBRS. Its
 14
Running Head: DEPLOYABLE BALLISTIC-RESISTANT SHIELD

lightweight nature and relatively low cost are what led me to choose this combination as the

victor. The UHMWPE fabric was also promising but is more expensive.

Both successful materials are much too expensive for practical use, with both types of

plates costing roughly $1000 to cover the needed surface area. While both are incredibly

expensive in bulk, the PC+PMMA was found to be slightly cheaper. The prototype was built

with the PC+PMMA plates in mind, but the UHMWPE would most likely work just as well. The

prototype works very well conceptually, but a full-scale model implementing actual materials

has yet to be tested. The model was mainly to highlight the basic mechanics of the device.

While seemingly definite, these results are not set in stone. For one, I was only able to

test the top two most common types of guns used in active shooter events: rifles and pistols. I

was not able to test against a shotgun, the third most common. I was also only able to test each

plate variant against any given gun once. The sample size was incredibly small. This was mostly

due to cost and time constraints. I would have much rather tested each variant multiple times

against each gun, though sadly this was unachievable. Even ignoring flaws in experimentation,

this project still contains many areas of improvement. The materials tested were relatively

successful, but definitely not successful enough to warrant a $1000 price tag. A major factor in

future research would be finding a cheaper alternative material. I also hope to create a full-scale

prototype to conduct testing on. As mentioned before, the current prototype is mostly to explain

the logistics of the DBRS. In terms of editing the prototype, the method for releasing the

bulletproof sheet is fairly basic and could be very difficult for shorter teachers to use. Figuring

out a different approach to this is necessary for a functioning prototype. A different glue is also

essential, the glue, Loctite® Plastic Bonder, used in the test plates failed in almost all tests it was

used in. Layers broke off from each other and was overall much too unstable.
 15
Running Head: DEPLOYABLE BALLISTIC-RESISTANT SHIELD

References
Boyd, H. (n.d.). Student says his door lock invention can save lives: EBSCOhost. Retrieved
from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=11&sid=cc01c58d-e4b8-411b-
b5076b7949c8afb%40sessionmgr4007&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#
db=a9h&AN=J0E059039844118

Gerard, F. J., Whitfield, K. C., Porter, L. E., & Brownie, K. D. (n.d.). Offender and Offence
Characteristics of School Shooting Incidents EBSCOost2.
Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=c2b4bf22-4442-4504-
8c5f-50792d52d4ae%40pdc-v-
sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=129298582&db=a9h

Kennedy, M. (2018). Locked in place: Door locks, especially for classrooms, are a key element o...:
EBSCOhost. Retrieved from
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=8bedb9c1-1f27-4f36-ab16-
a9c4a9c463c9%40sessionmgr4010

Montes, J. (2018, March 1). Preplanning Response to Active Shooter/Hostile Events: Proposed NFPA
3000.: EBSCOhost. Retrieved from
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=20&sid=a88a0a8f-ffe6-43c2-b32d-
a4c8d9893ad9%40sessionmgr4008

Soydan, S. M., Bahdir, T., & Sari, A. K. (n.d.). Simulation and Experimental Tests of Ballistic Impact on
Composite Laminate...: EBSCOhost. Retrieved from
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=2604b4ef-d596-49d9-a4e5-
9604657515f1%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=131380
812&db=a9h