See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/46251938

Numerical investigation of the bodywork effect (K-effect)

Article · September 2009

DOI: 10.1051/dymat/2009220

CITATIONS READS

6 903

3 authors, including:

Nestor Nsiampa Frederik Coghe

Royal Military Academy Royal Military Academy
18 PUBLICATIONS   59 CITATIONS    56 PUBLICATIONS   316 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Risk assessment of kinetic energy non-lethal weapons (KE NLW) View project

Risk assessment of kinetic-energy non-lethal weapons View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Frederik Coghe on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DYMAT 2009 (2009) 1561–1566
Ó EDP Sciences, 2009
DOI: 10.1051/dymat/2009220

Numerical investigation of the bodywork effect (K-effect)

N. Nsiampa, F. Coghe and G. Dyckmans

Dept. of Weapon Systems & Ballistics, Royal Military Academy, 1000 Brussels, Belgium

Abstract. Add-on armour kits composed of high-hardness steel plates are often used to improve the
protection of light personnel carriers and logistic vehicles against the ballistic impact of small caliber
ammunition, such as the 5,56 r 45 mm and the 7,62 r 51 mm NATO Ball projectiles. The protective
kits are integrated inside the existing vehicle bodywork. There are indications, however, that the
overall ballistic protection can also become less efficient by using the add-on armour, especially for
the 5,56 r 45 mm threat. This phenomenon is referred to as the bodywork effect: the ballistic protec-
tion offered by the bodywork plate in combination with the additional armour plate is lower than
the protection offered by the armour plate alone. This paper investigates the origin of the bodywork
effect through a series of numerical simulations. For validation purposes, a limited number of firings
have been performed. Split Hopkinson pressure bars tests were used for the characterization of the
dynamic behaviour of the integrated armour plate material.

1. INTRODUCTION
Small arms ammunition such as the 5,56 r 45 mm and the 7,62 r 51 mm NATO Ball cartridges
represent a major threat to lightweight personnel carriers and logistic vehicles. A way to improve
the ballistic protection of these vehicles is to integrate armour kits into the existing vehicle
bodywork. Although different types of armour material can be used, high hardness steels are
generally preferred because of their good ballistic performance, their acceptable weight and cost
[1, 2]. High hardness steel plates are integrated in such a way that they are invisible from the
outside of the vehicle. In general, this new protective structure (armour plate + bodywork) ensures
an efficient ballistic protection against small caliber ammunition. However, some reports indicate
that the integrated protection (armour plate + bodywork) offer less protection than the armour
plate by itself. This phenomenon is generally referred to as the bodywork or the K-effect. It has
especially been highlighted for the 5,56 r 45 mm NATO Ball ammunition.
The bodywork effect has been experimentally investigated [3]. The Thyssen-Krupp Secure 500
high hardness steel was used as add-on ballistic protection. The V50 velocity has been determined
for different target configurations impacted upon by different projectiles (Table 1). It has been
shown that the K-effect is due to the flattening of the projectile upon perforation of the bodywork,
resulting in a different failure mechanism (plugging) during the perforation of the add-on armour
plate (Figure 1). In order to get a better understanding of this phenomenon, numerical simulations
have been performed. This paper focuses on the first results of these simulations.

2. NUMERICAL MODELING
A 2D Lagrangian model has been used. Figure 2 shows the set-up of a 5.56 mm projectile
impacting a 1 mm mild steel plate (bodywork) and a 6.5 mm high hardness steel armour plate. The
Table 1. Ballistic limit velocities (V50) for different target/ammunition combinations.
6.5 mm armour plate followed by 1 mm mild
Target 6.5 mm armour plate steel bodywork plate (10 mm air gap) 6.5 mm armour plate
Ammunition 5.56 mm 5.56 mm 5.56 mm flat-tipped
V50 1003 m/s 964 m/s 910 m/s
1562 DYMAT International Conferences

Figure 1. Soft recovery of a 5.56 mm projectile after perforating a 1 mm thin mild steel plate.

projectile is composed of a front steel part, a lead core and a brass jacket. Two target
configurations have been considered: a single armour steel plate (configuration 1), and the same
armour steel plate preceded by a thin mild steel plate with a separation distance of 10 mm
(configuration 2).

Figure 2. Global set-up for 2D-numerical simulations.

2.1 Material modeling

For the material modeling in this application, most efforts have been devoted to the
characterization of the high hardness steel target material. A Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar
(SHPB) has been used for determining the Johnson-Cook strength model parameters. Because of
the high hardness of the armour steel, precautions have been taken during the tests in order to
avoid damage to the bars (especially for higher velocities of the impactor): small disks were added
with the same diameter as the bars. The disks were made of the same material as the test
specimens.
Because of its multiplicative form of uncoupled effects (strain hardening, strain rate and
thermal softening) the Johnson-Cook model is simple and widely used, especially for metals. The
five model parameters can be determined from a single experiment (Table 2).

Table 2. Johnson-Cook strength model parameters.

Johnson-Cook strength model
Parameter Armour steel Mild steel Projectile steel tip
A (MPa) 1299 350 1650
B (MPa) 2230 275 807
n 0.55853 0.36 0.10
C 0.044474 0.022 0.008
m 0.961240 1.00 1.0
Reference Own test [4] [5]
 DYMAT 2009 1563

It was shown during the experiments that for configuration 2 (armour plate preceded by the
thin mild steel plate) or for the impact of the truncated projectile on configuration 1 (armour plate
alone), the armour plate failed by plugging (Figure 3). This failure mechanism is generally
encountered for the impact of blunt projectiles on ductile metals.

Figure 3. Target plug (left) and penetrator (right) after impact.

It is generally admitted that adiabatic shear bands are precursors to plug failure [6]. Triaxiality
has a great influence on the failure mechanism [7, 8]. The Johnson-Cook damage model has been
used in this application (Table 3).

Table 3. Johnson-Cook damage model parameters.

Johnson-Cook damage model
Parameter Armour steel Mild steel Projectile steel tip
D1 0.168040 0.8 0.051
D2 0.034994 2.1 0.018
D3 x 2.44 x 0.5 x 2.44
D4 x 0.04502 0.0002 0.0001
D5 0.918998 0.61 0.55
Reference - [4] -

For the projectile lead and brass materials, constants have been taken from the literature [9].

2.2 Projectile geometries

To examine to what extent the projectile influences the failure mode of the armour steel plate,
numerical simulations have been performed with three different projectile geometries (Figure 4):
the full metal jacket (FMJ) projectile (a), the same projectile but with the brass tip cut off (b), and

Figure 4. Three different projectile geometries used in the numerical simulations.

1564 DYMAT International Conferences

for the last projectile, the brass around the front steel part has been removed (c). In all simulations,
the projectile impact velocity was set to 950 m/s.

3. NUMERICAL RESULTS

For the impact on the armour plate alone (configuration 1) with projectile type (a), there was no
plug formation and the projectile was completely eroded (Figures 5 and 6).

Figure 5. Experimental impact results for projectile (a) and projectile (b).

Figure 6. Numerical impact results for projectile (a).

The situation was completely different for the projectile (b) as strain localization took place in
the armour plate and a plug was formed and ejected (Figures 5 and 7). The projectile being a
conical blunt projectile, this is in good agreement with what is described in [6] and the role the
shear bands play in the formation of the plug.
Simulations showed that the backside of the armour plate was damaged (Figure 5). As the
backside is a free surface, reflections of compressive waves strained the material in tension which
causes the damage of the material knowing that the failure strain is greater in compression than in
tension.
The comparison between the results for projectiles (b) and (c) showed that there is no evidence
that the brass plays a significant role in the failure mechanism by plugging. Nevertheless, it may
influence the penetration mechanism indirectly as seen in [9]. Figure 8 shows the strain localization
into the armour plate using the projectile (c).
With the configuration 2 (mild steel + armour plate), only the projectile (a) was used. The
results showed that the simulations did not catch the strain localizations features observed in the
 DYMAT 2009 1565

Figure 7. Numerical impact results for projectile (b).

Figure 8. Numerical impact results for projectile (c).

Figure 9. Mild steel and brass material in front of the projectile steel core after perforation of the thin plate.
 1566 DYMAT International Conferences

experiments; the projectile failed to defeat the armour plate and no strain localization has been
observed in the numerical simulations. The possible explanation is that after the perforation of the
mild steel plate, the brass in front of the projectile was not completely eroded as observed in the
experiments; also, some mild steel material remained in front of the projectile (Figure 9). Further
examination is needed as to the presence of the remaining materials and the role they play on the
impact process of the armour plate.

4. CONCLUSIONS
The K-effect has been examined. Although some satisfying results have been obtained, investi-
gation is still going on to fully understand the phenomenon. The cause of the plug failure may be
essentially due to the form of the steel core (blunt) and the erosion of the brass in the front part of
the projectile. The use of another projectile type e.g. the 7.62 mm projectile, may add new insight
to the phenomenon.
Future work will be on the influence of triaxiality on the failure process and through
experiments, the validation of the armour steel failure model and the microscopic examination of
the rear side of the plate as simulations showed that it was damaged.

References

[1] Doig A., Military Metallurgy (British Crown Copyright 1998/MOD, London SW1Y 5DB,
ISBN 1-86125-061-4), pp. 11.
[2] Borvik T. et al., IJIE (2009), doi:10.116/J;ijimpeng.2008.12.003.
[3] Coghe F., Kestelyn B. and Pirlot M., Experimental validation of the origin of the bodywork
effect (K-effect) in the up-armouring of civil and military vehicles, 24th International
Symposium on Ballistics, New-Orleans, Louisiana, Sept 22-26 2008, pp. 421-429.
[4] Adams B., Simulation of ballistic impacts on armoured civil vehicles, PhD thesis, MT 06.03,
The Netherlands.
[5] Buchar J., Voldrich J., Rolc S. and Lisy J., Ballistics Performance of the dual hardness
armour, 20th International Symposium on Ballistics, Orlando, FL, 23-27 September 2002.
[6] Meyers M., Dynamic behavior of materials, (John Wiley & Sons, inc., 1994, ISBN
0-47158262-X), pp. 448-487.
[7] Bao Y., Wiersbicki T., Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 72 (2005), pp. 1049-1069.
[8] Mackenzie A., Hancock J. and Brown D., Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 9 (1977),
pp. 167-188.
[9] Nsiampa N., Dyckmans G. and Chabotier A., Impact of 7.62 mm AP ammunition into
Aluminium 5083 plates, 23rd International Symposium on Ballistics, Tarragona, Spain, 16-20
April 2007.

View publication stats