Deployable Ballistic-Resistant Shield

Year Two
Noah Martin
Harrison High School
11th Grade

Background Results / Data Conclusion

Last year, I began to develop the DBRS, the Deployable Ballistic- Fig 1
Resistant Shield in order to help protect students and faculty in the Porcelain 4 Layers
event of an active shooter scenario. This year, I decided to improve 1.5” Thick
upon the device in two major ways. The ballistic materials chosen in Est. Price (per full door): $300-$500
previous experimentation proved to be expensive and performed
Porcelain SEG 4 Layers
less than ideally, so I decided to test a new variety of materials. I also
1.5” Thick
improved upon the drop-down mechanism of the DBRS to allow for Est. Price (per full door): $800-$1000
accessibility and ease of use.
Porcelain 2 Layers
PC .25” 2 Layers
Research Question 1.25” Thick
Est. Price (per full door): $900-$1000
How can I improve upon my previous design in terms of cost
Porcelain SEG 2 Layers
effectiveness, bullet resistance, and accessibility? PC .25” 2 Layers
1.25”
Est. Price (per full door): $1000-$1200
Hypotheses Porcelain 2 Layers
UHMWPE 16 Layers
• The four layered porcelain plates (Tests 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B) will be .75” Thick
Est. Price (per full door): $500-700
able to stop both the handgun and the rifle shot.
Porcelain SEG 2 Layers
• The segmented porcelain will perform worse than the normal UHMWPE 16 Layers
porcelain, but will offer more effective protection via multi-shot .75” Thick
capacity. Est. Price (per full door): $700-$900
SUCCESSFUL TEST FROM PREVIOUS YEAR:
• The plates which combine multiple materials will fare worse than PC .25”
the pure porcelain plates. PMMA .5”
PC .25”
1.0” Thick
Est. Price (per full door): $1200-$1600
Engineering Goals
Fig 7
• Determine a more successful and cost-effective material for use in Fig 2
the DBRS
• Design and install an improved drop-down system for the
bulletproof sheet Plain Porcelain
6x6”
• Design an easy to use deployment system to activate the drop-
down system
Sig Sauer M17 Handgun Talon Armament AR15 Overall, porcelain plates proved to be incredibly effective in stopping bullets, much
1A 1B more so than materials used in the previous year of testing. My hypotheses did not
• Bullet penetrated only 1 layer of porcelain • Bullet penetrated all 4 layers of porcelain entirely reflect reality, however. I had predicted that test groups 1 and 2 would stop
• Cracked second and third layer • Surrounding area severely damaged
both rounds due simply to their incredible hardness , depth, and layering. This was
• Surrounding area left cracked and damaged • Significant splintering
SUCCESS FAILURE not the case. Both test groups stopped the handgun round, but not the rifle round.
As is shown in the data, test groups that combined the porcelain with a more flexible
2A 2B
• Bullet penetrated only 2 layers of porcelain • Bullet penetrated all 4 layers of porcelain material with a higher tensile strength fared much better. This combination of rigidity
• Cracked remaining layers • Impact damage contained within center 2x2” pre-cut square, with light
• Impact damage contained within bottom center 2x2” pre-cut square cracking spreading to other squares and flexibility allowed bullets of both caliber to be stopped in their tracks. This
SUCCESS FAILURE rendered my second hypothesis incorrect, though it was a welcomed surprise. I also
predicted that the segmented porcelain would perform worse against firearms, but
3A 3B
• Bullet penetrated 1 layer of porcelain • Bullet penetrated both layers of ceramic
prove more effective by offering more isolated areas of damage in case of multiple
• Cracked second layer, dented first polycarbonate layer slightly, did not • Severely dented polycarbonate layer, did not penetrate shots being fired. This was, for the most part, proven correct. When the segmented
penetrate
• Surrounding area left cracked and damaged
• Significant splintering in porcelain porcelain was shot, the damage was contained to one or two specific squares,
SUCCESS SUCCESS leaving nearby squares completely intact. The segmented porcelain did seem to
perform slightly worse than the plain porcelain, though its ability to be shot more
4A 4B
• Bullet penetrated both layers of porcelain • Bullet penetrated both layers of porcelain than once makes up for its slight disparity in strength. Test groups 3, 4, and 6 both
• Dented first polycarbonate layer slightly, did not penetrate • Dented first polycarbonate layer significantly, did not penetrate proved to be successful against both 9mm and .223 Remington rounds. The plate
• Impact damage contained within center 2x2” pre-cut square • Impact damage contained within center 2x2” pre-cut square
SUCCESS SUCCESS type used in test group 6 was chosen as most effective because of its use of
segmented porcelain, success in testing, low thickness, and low cost. The cost is
5A 5B especially significant, as the previous year’s victor cost roughly twice the amount,
• Bullet penetrated both layers of porcelain • Bullet penetrated both layers of porcelain
and didn’t protect against rifle rounds. This material combination proved incredibly
• Bullet hit corner of plate, causing the UHMWPE fabric to dislodge from main • Bullet was stopped by UHMWPE, severely deforming and warping the fabric
plate SUCCESS successful and will allow the DBRS to be sold at a much more affordable price,
INCONCLUSIVE should it ever reach the market. In terms of the adjustments I made to my prototype,
6A 6B I accomplished all of my set engineering goals. The new drop down mechanism
• Bullet penetrated both layers of porcelain • Bullet penetrated both layers of porcelain
• Created significant denting and warpage of UHMWPE fabric. Bullet was • Created significant denting and warpage of UHMWPE fabric. Bullet was
improves significantly upon the previous year’s model, allowing for improved
stopped stopped accessibility and ease of use.
SUCCESS SUCCESS
7A 7B
• Bullet was stopped at the layer of PMMA • Bullet passed through all layers of material
• Bullet dented and warped last layer of PC • Clean exit and entry hole on back and front layers of PC, respectively Fig 10
• PMMA significantly cracked, first layer of PC sustained a small hole and • Similar results as previous year Shot results of tests 1A and 2A.
warpage of material Shown to illustrate how
• Similar results as previous year damage is isolated to a single
SUCCESS FAILURE
square in segmented porcelain
plates. This is contrasted by the
plain porcelain plate, where a
TENSILE STRENGTH OF MATERIALS single shot damages the entire
plate via splintering. Both of
these plates were shot by the
same firearm, though the
difference in damage spread is
considerable.
UHMWPE
350,000

Fig 3
PMMA 8,000
Next Steps
Tensile Strength (PSI)
Methodology Polycarbonate 9,500 Though this second stage of development proved to be incredibly successful
Segmented Porcelain
6x6” in terms of reducing overall cost and efficiency of design, there are still
In order to determine which materials I would use in the second round of testing, I Porcelain (SEG)
aspects which I would like to improve on, should I continue development.
2,200
researched ceramics, as they are frequently used in body armor plates. Thus, my For one, I would like to adjust the drop-down mechanism so that it can be
testing centered around these materials, primarily Porcelain tiles with a PEI rating of remotely deployed, either through electromagnetic locks, or a remotely
Fig 4 Porcelain
5. I wanted to test these materials on their own and also in tandem with materials 2,500 controlled mechanical system. I also want to improve upon the latch
used in the previous year. The specific plate types and combinations are listed in ig mechanism at the bottom of the door that locks the shield in place. Another
1. Once I determined which plate types I was going to test, I ordered the materials Fig 9 hope of mine is production of a full scale working prototype. As it stands, my
Polymethylmethacrylate
from McMaster-Carr, Lowe’s, and Skarr Armor. I then assembled the plates, (PMMA) Full view of previous year’s half- half scale model works incredibly well, but a full scale prototype may
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000
wrapping each plate in a layer of duct tape to prevent splintering. Once the plates 6x6” perform differently, so in the future I hope to test the full scale prototype on
Tensile Strength (PSI) scale DBRS attached to the model
had been assembled, I made an appointment with Governor’s Gun Club of an actual door. This could reveal important data which may require me to
door. The old design required one revise the design.
Kennesaw. They graciously helped me with testing and provided an employee to Fig 8
shoot the plates. Each plate was shot at a range of 5m. Plates labeled with an “A”
to pull a board out from
Fig 5 Up close view of new drop underneath the shield, which is a
were shot with a Sig Sauer M17 handgun, while plates labeled “B” were shot with a
down mechanism. The difficult and impractical task in
Talon Armament AR15. We were unable to use the exact firearms used in the
segmented bulletproof case of emergency. Device was
previous year’s testing, but this year’s are nearly identical in terms of caliber, muzzle Polycarbonate
velocity, and overall power. Once each plate had been shot, they were analyzed for (PC) plates are held up by a edited significantly from last year. Citations Acknowledgements
damage and possible errors in shot efficiency. This data was recorded in Fig 1.
6x6” board which is attached to Changes include the addition of a
When redesigning the drop-down mechanism in the prototype, I brainstormed the base of the device via front panel to the model, revision
Armario, C. (2016). Locked rooms could save lives during shooting incidents:
EBSCOhost. Community College Week, 28(23), 50.
SPECIAL THANKS TO:
multiple design options. I eventually settled on a relatively simple design which hinges. The release to drop down mechanism, and Duplechain, PhD, R., & Morris, PhD, R. (2014). School violence: reported school
Fig 6 shootings and making schools safer. Education, 135(2), 145-150. • Governor’s Gun Club of Kennesaw -
utilized very few moving parts. I then bought all the necessary parts. These included mechanism consists of the revision to deployment system. Elliot, R. (2015). The Real School Safety Debate: Why legislative responses should focus For graciously helping me during
latches, hinges, and wood. I then dismantled the old drop-down mechanism, two latches in the center. Both mechanisms improve upon
on schools and not on guns: EBSCOhost. Arizona Law Review, 57(2), 523-550.
testing of materials
which was inefficient and difficult to use, and installed my new system, as seen in One simply pulls down the Sussman, A. (2012). Learning in lockdown: school police, race, and the limits of law: • My Parents – For help regarding
Ultra-High Molecular Weight last year’s design by providing ease EBSCOhost UCLA Law Review, 59(3), 62.
testing, construction, and payment
Figs 8 and 9. The new system performed spectacularly and met my established handle, and the shield is
engineering goals.
Polyethylene
(UHMWPE)
of use and accessibility. Teasley, M. L. (2018). School shootings and the need for more school-based mental health
Services: EBSCOhost. Children & Schools, 40(3), 131-134. • My Teachers – For general support
6x6”
deployed. doi:10.1093/cs/cdy015 and assistance