4.7 Article

Effect of target span and configuration on the ballistic limit

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPACT ENGINEERING
Volume 42, Issue -, Pages 11-24

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2011.10.004

Keywords

Span diameter; Layered target; Spaced target; Projectile nose shape; ABAQUS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Three-dimensional numerical simulations were carried out with ABAQUS/Explicit finite element code to study the influence of target span and configuration on its ballistic limit. 1 mm thick 1100-H12 aluminum targets of varying span diameter and configuration were impacted by blunt and ogive nosed projectiles of 19 mm diameter and 52.5 g mass. The effect of target span was studied by varying the span diameter of 1 mm thick monolithic target as 50 mm, 100 mm, 204 mm, 255 mm and 500 mm. The effect of configuration was studied by taking the monolithic, double layered in-contact and double layered spaced targets of 1 mm equivalent thickness and 255 mm span diameter. The spacing between the layers was varied as 2 mm, 5 mm, 10 mm, 20 mm and 30 mm. In each case the target was impacted normally by blunt and ogive nosed projectile to obtain the ballistic limit. The highest ballistic limit was observed for monolithic target followed by layered in-contact and spaced targets respectively. The variation of spacing between the layers did not have significant influence on the ballistic limit in the case of ogive projectile but some effect was seen in the case of blunt projectile. The ballistic limit was found to increase with increase in target span diameter for both the projectiles and it was found to be higher for blunt nosed projectile as compared to that of ogive nosed projectile for all the spans considered excepting in the case of 50 mm span for which it was higher for ogive nosed projectile. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available