International Journal of Impact Engineering 113 (2018) 161–167

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Impact Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijimpeng

Ballistic performance evaluation of ceramic tiles with respect to projectile T

velocity against hard steel projectile using DOP test
S G Savio*, V Madhu
Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, Hyderabad 500058, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The effect of backing material, projectile velocity and tile thickness on the ballistic efficiency of ceramic ma-
DOP test terials was studied against 7.62 mm AP projectile in depth of penetration (DOP) test configuration. An analysis
Ballistic efficiency on variation in differential efficiency factor (DEF) with respect to backing material was carried out. The factor
Ceramic armour material responsible for variation in DEF was eliminated using a normalization method. A new definition (NDEF/ NBE) is
Depth of penetration
proposed for calculation of ballistic efficiency. Using the new definition a comparison of ballistic efficiency of
hot pressed boron carbide, alumina and zirconia toughened alumina were done for different projectile velocities
and tile thickness. The DEF was found to increase with increase in projectile velocity, but NDEF and NBE were
found to decrease with increase in projectile velocities. Even though the DEF, NDEF and NBE have produced
different ballistic efficiencies they all have produced similar trends with respect to tile thickness.

1. Introduction backing materials which makes the comparison of ballistic efficiency

It is well known that the standalone ceramic structures cannot be
used as armour due to their inherent brittleness, and hence ceramic
materials are always used in combination with a ductile backing ma-
terial. Due to this reason the ballistic efficiency of ceramic material is
not always same and changes with respect to the configuration, type
and properties of backing material used [1–3]. Hence, attention must be
paid to the details of ballistic testing to understand the ballistic effi-
ciency of ceramic materials. Generally, the chosen type of ballistic
evaluation method depends on the kind of ballistic data needed [4].
Depth of Penetration (DOP) test is a simple and easy test method used
for ballistic evaluation of ceramic materials [5–7]. The ballistic effi-
ciency data obtained from DOP test method is used for ranking ceramic
materials for their ballistic performance [7,8]. Unlike (semi-infinite)
penetration [9,10] test, in DOP test the ballistic efficiency of ceramic
material is evaluated indirectly from the residual DOP obtained in the
ductile backing material. Therefore, the influence of backing material
on the ballistic efficiency of ceramic material is significant. Hence, the
major disadvantage of this test method is that the inconsistency in
backing material properties severely affects the evaluated ballistic ef-
ficiency of the tested ceramic material. Due to this, often the reported
ballistic efficiency of identical ceramic materials is found to differ
considerably. Another problem in dealing with DOP test data is that the
ballistic efficiency of ceramic material is not evaluated using a single
type of backing material. Instead it is evaluated with different types of
among different ceramic materials very difficult.
Further, the effect of projectile velocity on ballistic efficiency of
ceramic material is a very important parameter for armour design. In
DOP test configuration the ballistic efficiency is generally measured
using differential efficiency factor (DEF) or mass efficiency factor (MEF)
[8,13]. Moreover, the effect of projectile velocity on the ballistic effi-
ciency of ceramic targets have been studied by many authors, and it has
been found that the ballistic efficiency of ceramic materials increases as
the velocity of the projectile increases [8,11–14]. But these reported
results are found to be contrary to the general notion where the ballistic
efficiency of ceramic material is expected to be decreasing as the pro-
jectile velocity increases. An analysis on the published literature on the
penetration efficiency against metallic targets shows that the penetra-
tion efficiency of the projectile increases with respect to increase in
projectile velocity [15–20]. This means the ballistic efficiency of target
materials decreases as the projectile velocity increases. Similarly studies
on projectile penetration efficiency on ceramic materials have also
shown that the penetration efficiency increases as the projectile velocity
increases [21–23]. These results clearly indicate that an increase in
ballistic efficiency with increase in projectile velocity as in differential
efficiency factor (DEF) is highly impossible. The basic aim of the pre-
sent study is to have standardized reporting of ballistic efficiency of
ceramic material and to understand its variation as a function of pro-
jectile velocity.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: geasin@dmrl.drdo.in (S.G. Savio).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.11.020
Received 4 August 2017; Received in revised form 4 November 2017; Accepted 29 November 2017
Available online 01 December 2017
0734-743X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.G. Savio, V. Madhu International Journal of Impact Engineering 113 (2018) 161–167

different backing material is given in Fig. 2. From Fig. 2 it is found that

Nomenclature
both the reference and residual depth of penetration (DOP) increases as
the strength of backing aluminium alloy is decreased. But, it is also
DOP Depth of penetration
found that the residual DOP increases (nearly) proportionally with re-
MEF Mass efficiency factor
ference DOP. Therefore, the calculated DEF (see Fig. 3) was found to
NTEF Normalized thickness efficiency factor
increase with decrease in strength of the backing material (otherwise
DE Density efficiency
increase in reference DOP). Hence, the DOP testing of identical ceramic
DEF Differential efficiency factor
tiles with different backing materials yielded different DEF values due
NDEF Normalized differential efficiency factor
to difference in strength of backing materials. By adopting normal-
NBE Normalized ballistic efficiency
ization procedure for calculating DEF this difficulty has been overcome.
The residual (Pr) and reference (P0) penetrations were normalized with
respect to reference penetration (P0). Now consider a comparison be-
2. Experimental
tween differential DOP (P0 – Pr) and the normalized differential DOP
( P0 − Pr ) as given in Fig. 4. From the figure it is found that the differ-
The DOP test was conducted as per the configuration mentioned in P0

Fig. 1, also more details on DOP test can be found in our previous ential DOP increase with decrease in strength of the backing material,
publication [8]. The hard steel core projectiles of 7.62 mm AP was used but such trend is not observed in case of normalized differential DOP.
in all the experiments. The core of the projectile has a diameter of Also if we observe the data points baring the error the average nor-
6.1 mm and a length of 28.4 mm with a mass of 5.3 gms. All the ex- malized differential DOP is found to be similar for all the three backing
periments were conducted by firing projectiles with velocities from materials. The normalization effect on differential DOP can be ex-
600 m/s to 820 m/s. The debris of the projectile and the ceramic tile plained using the analytical model for penetration in metallic materials
produced by impact was collected, using a front fabric covered steel as suggested by Rosenberg and Dekel [26–28]. As per this model the
box, for further analysis. The broken shots were separated out using penetration (P) produced by a rigid rod in a semi-infinite metallic target
magnetic separation from the collected debris of each experiment. (in the ordinance velocity range) can be written as:
Three types of ceramic tiles such as hot pressed boron carbide, high
P = L.kV 2 (2)
purity alumina and zirconia toughened alumina were used in these
experiments. The properties of hot pressed boron carbide, high purity where
alumina and zirconia toughened alumina can be found in our earlier
publications [8,24]. The backing materials used in these studies were of k=ρp /2Rt (3)
aluminum 6063-T6, 2024-T351 and 7017-T6, and their properties are
given in Table 1. and the target resistance
The ballistic efficiency or differential efficiency factor (DEF) is
calculated from the experimental depth of penetration (DOP) as below: E
(Rt ) = Yt ⎡1.1 ln ⎛ ⎞ − ∅⎤
⎜ ⎟

ρb × (Po − Pr )
Differential efficiency factor (DEF ) =
(ρc × t )
where,
ρc – density of the ceramic material
ρb – density of the backing material
P0 – reference depth of penetration in the backing material
Pr – residual depth of penetration in the backing material
t – thickness of the ceramic tile
3. Results and discussion
⎢ Y
⎝ t⎠ ⎥ (4)
⎣ ⎦
(1)
Where, L - length of the projectile, V - projectile velocity, ρp - pro-
jectile density, Yt -target strength, E -Young's modulus of the target
material and Φ - nose shape factor of the projectile. Now let us consider
the residual penetration of the projectile after defeating ceramic tile.
Here, we can assume a lesser sharp nose for the penetrating projectile.
This change in nose shape factor (Φ) affects the target resistance and
finally the constant k. Hence, two separate constants k1 and k2 have
been assigned for both reference and residual penetration respectively.
Therefore, using Eq. (2) both the differential DOP and normalized dif-
ferential DOP can be written as below:

3.1. Effect of backing material Differential DOP = Po − Pr = k1L 0 V0 2 − k2L r Vr 2 = (k1 − k2wy 2)L 0 V0 2
(5)
The effect of backing material on the ballistic efficiency of ceramic L
materials was studied. The ballistic experimental results are given in Where, w = Lr − normalized residual length, y = Vr − normalized
0 V0
Table 2. The reference and residual depth of penetration with respect to residual velocity, and

Fig. 1. The schematic diagram of depth of penetration (DOP)

Steel target configuration (a) residual DOP (Pr) and (b) reference DOP
confinement Al-alloy backing Al-alloy backing (P0).

Ceramic tile
Reference
Residual Penetration
Penetration
Po
Pr
Brass shim

t
(a) (b)

162
S.G. Savio, V. Madhu International Journal of Impact Engineering 113 (2018) 161–167

Table 1 7.5
Properties of the backing aluminium alloys.
7.0
Backing Material Density (g/cc) Proof stress (MPa) UTS (MPa)

Differential Efficeiency Factor

Al7017-T6 [8] 2.8 458 508 6.5
Al2024-T351 [25] 2.78 310 457
Al6063-T6 [8] 2.71 227 278
6.0

Table 2 5.5
Ballistic experimental results of hot pressed boron carbide tiles with different backing
materials.
5.0

Backing Ceramic Ceramic Projectile Residual Average

materials tile tile velocity penetration reference 4.5
density thickness (m/s) (mm) penetration
(g/cc) (mm) (mm)
4.0
Al 7017- 2.39 5.2 823 10.5 37 Al 7017 Al2024 Al6063
T6
Backing material
2.39 5.3 819 14.5
2.38 5.4 823 19 Fig. 3. The Differential Efficiency Factor (DEF) of hot pressed boron carbide tile with
2.41 5.2 816 9.5 respect to different backing materials.
2.35 5.2 823 19.5
2.39 5.4 833 14
Al2024- 2.42 5.3 834 12.2 42.1 50 100
T351 Difference (Po-Pb)
2.44 5.3 835 18.2 Normalised DP(%)

Normalised differential DOP (%)

45
2.44 5.3 836 30.2 80
2.37 5.2 832 22.1
Differential DOP (mm)

2.37 5.4 836 14.6

40
2.45 5.2 830 12
60
Al6063- 2.40 5.0 806 30.0 54
T6 35
2.41 5.2 813 18.0
2.41 5.4 810 20.0 40
2.41 5.3 805 19.0 30
2.39 5.6 801 17.5
2.39 5.4 809 28.0 20
25

60
20 0
Residual DOP Al 7017 Al2024 Al6063
Reference DOP
Backing material
50
Depth of Penetration (mm)

Fig. 4. A comparison of differential DOP (DP) and normalized differential DOP (NDP)
with respect to different backing materials (for hot pressed boron carbide tiles).

40
20 10
NDEF
18

Normalised Ballistic Efficieicy (NBE)

NBE
9
30 16
Normalised DEF (NDEF)

14 8

20 12
7
10
6
6
10
Al 7017 Al2024 Al6063
4 5
Backing material

Fig. 2. The reference and residual depth of penetration obtained in different backing 4
materials for DOP testing with hot pressed boron carbide tiles. 2

3
Al 7017 Al2024 Al6063
k1 L0 V02 − k2 Lr Vr2
Normalized differential DOP = Backing material
k1 L0 V02
2 Fig. 5. A comparison of normalized differential efficiency factor (NDEF) and normalized
k L V k
= 1 − ⎛ 2 ⎞ ⎛ r ⎞ ⎛ r ⎞ 1 − ⎛ 2 ⎞ wy 2
⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ballistic efficiency (NBE) with respect to different backing materials (for hot pressed
⎝ k1 ⎠ ⎝ L0 ⎠ ⎝ V0 ⎠ ⎝ k1 ⎠ (6) boron carbide tiles).

Here, L0 – original length of the projectile, Lr – residual length of the

Even though the Rosenberg-Dekel model is applicable for rigid long
projectile, V0 – original projectile velocity used in the experiment, Vr –
rods and for short projectiles with deep penetrations, it has been chosen
residual velocity of the projectile after defeating ceramic tile and before
here for its simplicity. Further, while considering reference DOP the
penetrating backing material.

163
S.G. Savio, V. Madhu International Journal of Impact Engineering 113 (2018) 161–167

Table 3 Table 5
Ballistic experimental results of hot pressed boron carbide tiles with Al6063-T6 backing Ballistic Experimental results of zirconia toughened alumina (ZTA) tiles with Al6063-T6
and with different projectile velocities [8]. backing and with different projectile velocities.

No. of Velocity of Tile Tile Residual Ref. Tail No. of Velocity of Tile Tile Residual Ref. Tail
experiments the thickness density DOP DOP shot experiments the thickness density DOP DOP shot
projectile (mm) (g/cm3) (mm) (mm) weight (nos.) projectile (mm) (g/cm3) (mm) (mm) weight
(m/s) (gms) (m/s) (gms)

1 608 6.4 2.47 4.5 32 3.13 1 575 5.2 4.03 2 32 2.43

2 596 6.3 2.46 11.5 – 2 600 5.2 4.02 2 3.53
3 605 6.2 2.45 9.5 3.97 3 593 5.2 4.02 1 1.2
4 596 6.1 2.47 0.5 1.33 4 584 5.2 4.02 4 2.28
5 603 6.1 2.47 0.5 0.95 5 588 5.1 4.05 7 1.69
6 598 6.0 2.47 1.5 1.36 6 612 5.2 4.00 1.5 3.04
1 698 6.5 2.46 8.0 42 – 1 710 5.2 4.03 2.5 43 0.83
2 705 6.3 2.47 4.0 1.1 2 707 5.2 4.02 15.5 3.81
3 699 6.1 2.47 5.0 – 3 696 5.2 4.01 14 1.48
4 703 6.4 2.46 18.5 4.96 4 706 5.2 4.06 5 0.83
5 709 6.1 2.46 12 2.27 5 699 5.2 4.01 6 1.43
6 702 6.0 2.47 10 1.91 6 714 5.2 4.02 8 2.26
1 814 6.3 2.46 19.0 54 3.64 1 818 5.0 4.07 8.5 54 3.29
2 810 6.3 2.46 10.0 4.93 2 807 5.2 4.01 21 4.22
3 809 6.2 2.47 4.5 1.28 3 800 5.2 4.02 27 4.94
4 810 6.5 2.45 6.5 3.08 4 816 5.2 4.03 9.5 3.12
5 801 6.2 2.45 23.5 0.75 5 814 5.3 4.01 12.5 1.37
6 806 6.4 2.46 15 3.36 6 824 5.1 4.05 12.5 3.9

20
Table 4
Boron Carbide (6.2mm thick)
Ballistic experimental results of alumina tiles with Al6063-T6 backing and with different
18 Alumina (5mm thick)
projectile velocities. ZTA (5.2 mm thick)
16
Depth of Penetration (mm)

No. of Velocity of Tile Tile Residual Ref. Tail

experiments the thickness density DOP DOP shot 14
(nos.) projectile (mm) (g/cm3) (mm) (mm) weight
(m/s) (gms) 12

10
1 596 5.0 3.91 0.5 32 1.5
2 605 5.0 3.91 6.5 2.77 8
3 597 5.0 3.91 1 2.25
4 608 5.0 3.91 0.5 2.31 6
5 600 5.0 3.91 5 4.37
6 602 5.0 3.91 1 0.79 4
1 707 5.0 3.91 5 42 –
2
2 708 5.0 3.91 9.5 –
3 705 5.0 3.92 3 3.38
0
4 703 5.0 3.91 10 1.92
550 600 650 700 750 800 850
5 697 5.0 3.91 11.5 4.51
6 704 5.0 3.92 3.5 3.09 Projectile velocity (m/s)
1 808 5.0 3.88 20.5 54 4.53
2 823 5.1 3.91 11 1.91 Fig. 6. The residual DOP produced by hot pressed boron carbide, alumina and ZTA tiles
3 816 5.0 3.92 6 1.97 in Al6063-T6 backing for different projectile velocities.
4 811 5.0 3.91 10 1.37
5 828 5.0 3.91 16.5 4.3 80
6 810 5.0 3.91 21 4.48 Boron carbide ( 6.2mm thick)
Alumina (5mm thick)
Normalised residual shot wt (%)

70 ZTA (5.2mm thick)

presence of entrance phase in short projectiles does reduces the Rt to
Reff, but this effect could be well absorbed within the constant k1, which
60
is finally used in the analysis of normalization. Also in case of residual
DOP, after penetration of ceramics, the projectile nose shape can be
assumed to be blunt and for which the entrance phase is very minimal, 50
and even in this case too the change in Rt, if any, could be absorbed in
the constant k2. Therefore the application of Rosenberg-Dekel model in 40
this situation is justified.
Now, we can safely assume the residual projectile velocity (Vr) and
the residual length of the projectile (Lr) is mainly influenced by the 30

ceramic target and not by the backing material. Therefore, the ratios Lr
L0
and Vr are constants for DOP experiments conducted with similar 20
V0
550 600 650 700 750 800 850
ceramic tiles and same projectile velocities. And this condition is ap-
plicable for the current DOP experiments which were performed on hot Projectile velocity (m/s)
pressed boron carbide tiles of similar thickness with different backing Fig. 7. The normalized residual shot weight produced by hot pressed boron carbide,
materials. Here, since the constants k1 and k2 in Eqs. (5) and (6) are alumina and ZTA tiles in Al6063-T6 backing for different projectile velocities.
varying proportionally, the ratio k2 produces a constant value in case of
k1

164
S.G. Savio, V. Madhu International Journal of Impact Engineering 113 (2018) 161–167

8 10
Boron carbide (6.2mm thick) Alumina
Alumina (5mm thick) ZTA
9 Boron carbide
ZTA (5.2mm thick)
Differential Efficiency Factor

Differential Efficiency Factor

7

6
7

5 6

5
4
4

3 3
550 600 650 700 750 800 850 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Projectile velocity (m/s) Tile Thickness (mm)

Fig. 8. The differential efficiency factor (DEF) obtained for hot pressed boron carbide, Fig. 11. The differential efficiency factor (DEF) as a function of ceramic tile thickness for
alumina and ZTA tiles when tested with Al6063-T6 backing for different projectile ve- hot pressed boron carbide, alumina and ZTA tiles tested with Al6063-T6 backing.
locities.

17 Alumina
Boron carbide (6.2 mm thick) 18 ZTA
16 Alumina (5mm thick) Boron carbide
ZTA (5.2mm thick)
15
15
14
NDEF

13
NDEF

12

12

11 9

10

9 6

8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
550 600 650 700 750 800 850 Tile Thickness (mm)
Projectile velocity (m/s)
Fig. 12. The normalized differential efficiency factor (NDEF) as a function of ceramic tile
Fig. 9. The normalised differential efficiency factor (NDEF) obtained for hot pressed thickness for hot pressed boron carbide, alumina and ZTA tiles tested with Al6063-T6
boron carbide, alumina and ZTA tiles when tested with Al6063-T6 backing for different backing.
projectile velocities.
8
7 Alumina
ZTA
Boron carbide (6.2mm thick)
7 Boron carbide
Normalised Ballstic Efficiency

Al2O3 (5mm thick)

Normalised Ballistic Efficiency

ZTA (5.2 mm thick)

6 6

5
5

4 3

2
3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
550 600 650 700 750 800 850 Tile Thickness (mm)
Projectile Velocity (m/s) Fig. 13. The normalized ballistic efficiency (NBE) as a function of ceramic tile thickness
for hot pressed boron carbide, alumina and ZTA tiles tested with Al6063-T6 backing.
Fig. 10. The normalised ballistic efficiency (NBE) obtained for hot pressed boron carbide,
alumina and ZTA tiles when tested with Al6063-T6 backing for different projectile ve-
locities.

165
S.G. Savio, V. Madhu International Journal of Impact Engineering 113 (2018) 161–167

normalized differential DOP, and the difference (k1 − k2) produces a ceramic materials. The increase in residual shot weight clearly indicates
variation in case of differential DOP. that there is a decrease in ballistic efficiency of the target ceramic tiles
Therefore, defining ballistic efficiency using normalized DOPs in- as projectile velocity increases. The present observations on residual
stead of absolute DOPs will be a better option, at least for ballistic tests shot weight is well in agreement with the previous results on projectile
conducted with backing materials with similar densities. Hence, the penetration efficiency [21–23], which has been found to increase with
normalized differential efficiency factor (NDEF) is defined as below: increase in projectile velocity.
The differential efficiency factor (DEF) as a function of projectile
(P*0 − P*r ) × ρ b
Normalized differential efficiency factor (NDEF) velocity for all the three ceramic materials is given in Fig. 8. From the
t × ρc
graph (Fig. 8) it is found that the DEF for all three ceramic materials
(100 − P*r ) ρ increase with increase in projectile velocity. The increasing trend in
= × b
t ρc (7) DEF with projectile velocity is contradictory to the observations found
in residual shot weight (Fig. 7), which has clearly shown a decrease in
Where
ballistic performance of ceramic tiles with increase in projectile velo-
P city. Therefore, it is understood that ballistic efficiency based on DEF is
normalized residual DOP (Pr*) = ⎛ r ⎞ × 100
⎜ ⎟

⎝ P0 ⎠ (8) not a correct method where projectile velocity is varied, and hence it
needs to be modified. Now let us examine the calculation of normalized
And differential DOP using Eq. (6). In Eq. (6), we can assume the ratio k2 as
k1
P constant, because it is known that k depends on the properties (of both
normalized reference DOP (Po*) = ⎛ 0 ⎞ × 100 = 100
⎜ ⎟
projectile and target materials) such as ρp, Yt, E(target) and projectile
⎝ P0 ⎠ (9)
nose shape factor (Φ), but not on projectile velocity. Moreover, we have
(100 − P*)
r
Here, the term is called normalized thickness efficiency already seen in Fig. 7 that the residual shot length marginally increases
t
ρb
factor (NTEF) and the ratio can be called as density efficiency (DE) as an increase in projectile velocity. Therefore, it can be assumed that
ρc
of the tested ceramic material in comparison with the backing material. the change in normalized differential DOP is produced only due to
Moreover, as per Eqs. (2)–(4) the penetration produced in the target changes in normalized residual length ( Lr ) and normalized residual
L0
material is not influenced by the target density. Hence, for calculating velocity ( Vr ) of the projectile. Also we know that both Lr and Vr in-
V0 L0 V0
ballistic efficiency using Eq. (7) the backing material density (ρb) can be creases with respect to increase in projectile velocity and hence the
assumed to be unity. This will eliminate the effect of backing material normalized differential DOP should decrease as velocity of the pro-
density in the calculated ballistic efficiency of the ceramic materials jectile increases. This result is in agreement with the experimental
tested with different backing materials with varying densities. There- observation. Hence, as per Eq. (7) the normalized ballistic efficiency
fore, a normalized ballistic efficiency (NBE) is defined as below: (NDEF) was used for further calculations on ballistic efficiency of all
(100 − P*r ) ceramic materials and all projectile velocities. The calculated normal-
1
Normalised ballistic efficiency (NBE) = × ized differential efficiency factor (NDEF) as a function of projectile
t ρc
velocity for hot pressed boron carbide, alumina and ZTA are shown in
(100 − P*r ) Fig. 9. From the figure it is observed that the NDEF decreases with
=
t × ρc (10) increase in projectile velocity for all the three ceramic materials stu-
The NDEF and NBE determined for hot pressed boron carbide tiles died. Therefore, this result well represents the real trend in ballistic
with three different backing materials are shown in Fig. 5. Baring the performance of ceramic materials as a function of projectile velocity,
error both the NDEF and NBE are found to be similar for all the three agreeing well with published results on projectile penetration effi-
backing materials tested and found not to be increasing with decrease ciency. Further, the ballistic efficiency was also analyzed using nor-
in strength of the backing material. Hence, it is better to use either malized ballistic efficiency (NBE) (Eq. 10) which is shown in Fig. 10.
NDEF or NBE instead of DEF for the calculations of ballistic efficiency of The trend observed in Fig. 10 is similar to the one observed in Fig. 9.
ceramic materials tested with different backing materials (or backing Therefore, it is better to use either NDEF or NBE instead of DEF for the
materials with varying strength) in DOP test configuration. The NBE calculations of ballistic efficiency of ceramic materials tested with
results are even better since they are not even influenced by the backing varying velocities in DOP test configuration.
material density.

3.3. Effect of tile thickness

3.2. Effect of projectile velocity
A comparison of ballistic efficiency on the effect of tile thickness for
The basic aim of this study is to understand the effects of projectile
hot pressed boron carbide, alumina and zircon toughened alumina
velocity on the residual depth of penetration, projectile failure and
(ZTA) was done by comparing the published data of these materials by
ballistic efficiency. The experimental results on the effect of projectile
the authors [8,24]. The differential efficiency factor (DEF), normalized
velocity on hot pressed boron carbide, alumina and zirconia toughened
differential efficiency factor (NDEF) and normalized ballistic efficiency
alumina tiles are given in Tables 3–5 respectively. The effect of residual
(NBE) of hot pressed boron carbide, alumina and ZTA as a function of
DOP and normalized residual shot weight (normalized with respect to
tile thickness is given in Figs. 11–13. It is found from the figures that
original shot weight) as a function of projectile velocity is given in
even though the DEF, NDEF and NBE all have produced different bal-
Figs. 6 and 7 respectively. It is found that the residual DOP increases as
listic efficiency values for the same ceramic material, the trend in
the projectile velocity increases for all ceramic materials tested. A ca-
variation of ballistic efficiency with respect to ceramic tile thickness is
sual look at the normalized residual shot weight (%) Vs projectile ve-
found to be similar. This means we have choice of using any one of the
locity data (Fig. 7) may give an impression that residual shot weight has
ballistic efficiency for comparing the ballistic efficiency with respect to
remained unchanged with increase in projectile velocity for the tested
variation in tile thickness. However, it is better to use NBE for com-
velocities. But a closer look at the data and removing the scatter, even
paring or ranking of ceramic materials for their ballistic efficiency since
though there is minor deviation in trend at 700 m/s for alumina and
it has eliminated the effected of backing material strength and density
ZTA, a general trend can be found that the normalized residual shot
in ballistic efficiency calculation.
weight (%) of the projectile marginally increase as an increase in pro-
jectile velocity within the tested velocity range, for all the tested

166
S.G. Savio, V. Madhu
4. Conclusions
A study on the effect of backing material, projectile velocity and
ceramic tile thickness on the ballistic efficiency was carried out against
7.62 mm AP hard steel projectile. The ballistic efficiency of ceramic
tiles was determined using three methods such as DEF, NDEF and NBE,
and the merits and demerits of each method have been discussed. The
DEF was found to be increasing with decreases in strength of the
backing material. The change in DEF with different backing material
was found to be due to change in projectile nose shape after defeating
the ceramic which have caused the change in target resistance. A new
ballistic efficiency, NDEF, was introduced with normalization done to
the thickness efficiency factor of the DEF, which eliminated the influ-
ence of strength of backing material on the ballistic efficiency of the
ceramic material. Further, normalization by assuming the backing
density as unity, a new ballistic efficiency NBE was introduced which
eliminated the influence of backing material density effect on the bal-
listic efficiency. Even though both NDEF and NBE produced different
ballistic efficiency values for the same ceramic material both gave si-
milar ballistic efficiency values for all backing materials. Both DOP and
residual shot weight was found to increase with increase in projectile
velocity. Also the DEF increased with increase in projectile velocity but
both NDEF and NBE was found to decrease with projectile velocity.
Hence, both NDEF and NBE followed the trend of residual projectile
weight, where the ballistic efficiency of ceramic decreases with pro-
jectile velocity. Similarly, both NDEF and NBE produced similar trends
in ballistic efficiencies with respect to both projectile velocity and tile
thickness. Since, in NBE the effect of both backing material strength and
backing density has been eliminated in ballistic efficiency calculation,
the NBE is the best parameter to measure ballistic efficiency and to
compare or rank the ceramic materials for their ballistic performance.
Finally, regarding the applicability of this method to KE long rods, at
present the authors do not have experimental data to substantiate it but
are working on it. However, as of now the authors would like to say that
this method should be applicable to all type of projectiles, provided that
the projectile penetration in backing material is considered as rigid and
is below the cavitation velocity.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank DRDO for funding to carry out this work and to
Director, DMRL, for his constant encouragement and support. The
support of all staff members of Armour Division, especially Mr. PRS
Reddy, Mr. Seshagiri Rao and Mr. K Mogulanna in conducting ballistic
tests is acknowledged. Further, help provided by other groups of DMRL
is also acknowledged.
References
[1] James Bryn. Practical issues in ceramic armour. Ceramic armour materials by de-
sign, ceramic transactions. 134. 2002. p. 33–44.
[2] Rosenberg Z, Ashuach Y, Yeshurun Y, Dekel E. On the main mechanisms for de-
feating AP projectiles, long rodsand shaped charge jets. Int J Impact Eng
2009;36:588–96.
167
International Journal of Impact Engineering 113 (2018) 161–167
[3] Sherman Dov, Brandon DG. The ballistic failure mechanisms and sequence in semi-
infinite supported alumina tiles. J Mater Res 1997;12(5):1335–43.
[4] Normandia Michael J, Gooch William A. An overview of ballistic testing methods of
ceramic materials. Ceramic armour materials by design, ceramic transactions. 134.
2002. p. 113–38.
[5] Bless SJ, Rosenberg Z, Yoon B. Hypervelocity penetration of ceramics. Int J Impact
Eng 1987;5:165–71.
[6] Rosenberg Z, Bless SJ, Yeshurn Y, Okajima K. A new definition of ballistic efficiency
of brittle materials based on the use of thick backing plates. Impact Loading Dyn
Behav Mater 1988;1:491–8.
[7] James Bryn. Depth of penetration testing. Ceramic armour materials by design,
ceramic transactions. 134. 2002. p. 165–72.
[8] Savio SG, Ramanjaneyulu K, Madhu V, Balakrishna Bhat T. An experimental study
on ballistic performance of boron carbide tiles. Int J Impact Eng
2011;38(7):535–41.
[9] Orphal DL, Franzen RR. Penetration of confined silicon carbide targets by tungsten
long rods at impact velocities from 1.5 to 4.6km/s. Int J Impact Eng
1997;19(1):1–13.
[10] Orphal DL, Franzen RR, Charters AC, Menna TL, Piekutowski AJ. Penetration of
confined boron carbide targets by tungsten long rods at impact velocities from 1.5
to 5.0km/s. Int J Impact Eng 1997;19(1):15–29.
[11] Madhu V, Ramanjaneyulu K, Balakrishna Bhat T, Gupta NK. An experimental study
of penetration resistance of ceramic armour subjected to projectile impact. Int J
Impact Eng 2005;32:337–50.
[12] Cullis IG, Lynch NJ. Performance of model scale long rod projectiles against com-
plex targets over the velocity range 1700–2200m/s. Int J Impact Eng
1995;17:263–74.
[13] Senf H, Straburger E, Rothenhäusler H, Lexow B. The Dependency of ballistic mass
efficiency of light armor on striking velocity of small caliber projectiles. The
Proceedings of the 17th international symposium on ballistics. March 1998. p.
23–7.
[14] Franzen RR, Orphal DL, Anderson Jr CE. The influence of experimental design on
depth-of-penetration (DoP) test results and derived ballistic efficiencies. Int J
Impact Eng 1997;19(8):727–37.
[15] Forrestal MichaelJ, Warren ThomasL. Penetration equations for ogive-nose rods
into aluminum targets. Int J Impact Eng 2008;35:727–30.
[16] Lynch NJ, Subramanian R, Brown1 S, Alston J. The influence of penetrator geo-
metry and impact velocity on the formation of crater volume in semi-infinite tar-
gets. 19th International symposium of ballistics. 7–11. May 2001. p. 1265–71.
[17] Anderson Jr CharlesE, Walker JamesD, Lankford Jim. Investigations of the ballistic
response of brittle materials Southwest Research Institute; 1995. Report No.
SwRI5117/002.
[18] LOU Jian-feng, Zhang Yan-geng, Wang Zheng, Hong Tao, Zhang Xiao-li, Zhang Shu-
dao. Long-rod penetration: the transition zone between rigid and hydrodynamic
penetration modes. Defence Technol 2014;10:239–44.
[19] Rosenberg Z, Dekel E. Material similarities in long-rod penetration mechanics. Int J
Impact Eng 2001;25:361–72.
[20] Anderson Jr CharlesE, Walker JamesD, Bless StephanJ, Partom Yehuda. On the L/D
effect for long-rod penetrators. Int J Impact Eng 1996;18(3):247–64.
[21] Normandia MJ. Impact response and analysis of several silicon carbides. Int J Appl
Ceram Technol 2004;1(3):226–34.
[22] Orphal DL, Franzen RR. Penetration of confined silicon carbide targets by tungsten
long rods at impact velocities from 1.5 to 4.6km/s. Int J Impact Eng
1997;19(1):1–13.
[23] Orphal DL, Franzen RR, Charters AC, Menna TL, Piekutowski AJ. Penetration of
confined Boron carbide targets by tungsten long rods at impact velocities form 1.5
to 5km/s. Int J Impact Eng 1997;19(1):15–29.
[24] Savio SG, Madhu V, Gogia AK. Ballistic performance of alumina and zirconia-
toughened alumina against 7.62 armour piercing projectile. Defence Sci J
2014;64(5):477–83.
[25] Savio SG, Madhu V. Effect of tile thickness and projectile velocity on the ballistic
performance of boron carbide against 12.7mm AP. Procedia Eng
2017;Vol.173:286–92.
[26] Rosenberg Z, Dekel E. The penetration of rigid long rods – revisited. Int J Impact
Eng 2009;36:551–64.
[27] Rosenberg Z, Dekel E. On the deep penetration of deforming long rods. Int J Solids
Struct 2010;Vol.47:238–50.
[28] Rosenberg Z, Dekel E. Terminal ballistic. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2012. p. 45–61.