Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

Experimental and numerical investigation of Kevlar and UHMWPE

multi-layered armors against ballistic impact
Iftikar A. Saleem a, Payman S. Ahmed b, Mayyadah S. Abed c,⇑
a
Dept. of Materials Engineering. University of Technology, Iraq
b
Manufacturing & Industrial Engineering Dept, Koya University, Koya KOY45, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
c
Dept. of Materials Engineering. University of Technology, Iraq

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This work aims to prepare hybrid composites to evaluate their behavior under ballistic impact experi-
Available online xxxx mentally and numerically. Multilayered armors were designed as ceramic/woven fabric reinforced with
epoxy/5074 Al-alloy. Silicon carbide (SiC) represents the first layer against the bullet. Aramid fabric
Keywords: (Kevlar) reinforced epoxy (KEV/EPX), or Ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) reinforced
Body armor epoxy (UPE/EPX) represent the intermediate composites, whereas, the back layer was 5074 Al-alloy. In
Ballistic experimental ballistic tests, a 9 mm Full Metal Jacket FMJ bullet was launched at 307 m/s towards armor
Silicon carbide
30*30 cm2. The Finite Element Method (FEM) is used to simulate the ballistic impact resistance of armor.
Al-alloy
UHMWPE
Results from simulation and experimental testing were compared with ballistic tests and there was a
ANSYS good agreement. The result shows that a SiC+UPE/EPX+Al-alloy and a SiC+KEV/EPX+Al-alloy were able
to stop the 9 mm FMJ bullet, and showed that the bullet perforated many layers of armor without pen-
etration. The backface signature (BFS) was also measured. It is within the permissible range. SiC+UPE/EPX
+Al-alloy absorbed more energy compared to SiC + KEV/EPX + Al-alloy. The SiC+UPE/EPX+Al-alloy, the
ceramic layer absorbed more energy than the UPE/EPX and Al-alloy, reaching 80.5% of the total energy,
while in the SiC+KEV/EPX+Al-alloy, the ceramic layer absorbed more energy than the KEV/EPX and Al-
alloy, reaching 78.4% of the total energy. UPE/EPX absorbed energy more than KEV/EPX. That reached
19% of the total energy, while KEV/EPX absorbed about 15% of the total energy. The aim of using ansys
Autodyn and explicit dynamic is to calculate the amount of kinetic and absorbed energies and to compare
the deformation amount with experimental results.
Copyright Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 3rd International Con-
ference on Contemporary Advances in Mechanical Engineering This is an open access article under the CC
BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction
When wars and terrorist attacks have increased, there is a
requirement for ballistic protection at a high level for defense
industries and the military. This has become one of the most signif-
icant difficulties for ballistic protection researchers and engineers
in the field of bullet and shrapnel defense [1,2]. This is because
using body armor has helped militaries and soldiers save countless
lives in warfighting and counter-terrorism operations. According to
a study from the Iraq war in 2003, with 58 % in the legs, eyes, or
hands, only 9% of the wounds were in the torso [3]. Additionally,
in recent years, ballistic-resistant personal armor has rescued more
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mayyadah.s.abed@uotechnology.edu.iq (M.S. Abed).
than 3000 police officers, according to statistics from foreign law
enforcement agencies [4,5].
Traditionally, armor systems have been monolithic and made of
steel plates with high strength [6–9]. Even so, competition has
increased for multi-layer materials that provide ballistic protection
at a lower weight. Ceramics and fiber-reinforced composites have
become popular in armor systems over time [10,11]. Composite
armor consists of a strong ceramic material and a backing layer
of fiber-reinforced composite, and this type is considered multi-
layered armor. The main purpose of the ceramic materials is to dis-
tort and erode the projectile to reduce the local pressure exerted
on the backing composite plate. Also, the composite backplate
absorbs part of the kinetic energy of the projectile. In multilayered
armor systems, the metal layers were also checked as backplates
[12]. The function of the fabric body armor Versus dangers that

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.08.345
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 3rd International Conference on Contemporary Advances in Mechanical Engineering
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: I.A. Saleem, P.S. Ahmed and M.S. Abed, Experimental and numerical investigation of Kevlar and UHMWPE multi-layered armors
against ballistic impact, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.08.345
I.A. Saleem, P.S. Ahmed and M.S. Abed Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

are deformable well through the distribution of kinetic energy
occur through high strength fibers with dissipation types such as
fiber shear or fiber fracture, associated delamination or pullout,
and fiber tensile failure or straining [13]. Nylon was the first fabric
used in armor applications that are used in flak vests that are used
for shrapnel protection. The most important developments in fab-
ric armor were DuPont’s Kevlar. And other types of fibers were
used in armor similar to Kevlar, in both woven and non-woven
forms. Such as Aramids like Zylon, Twaron, and Gold Flex,
UHMWPE like Dyneema and Spectra [13].
So it is very interesting to fabricate body armor. This work
investigates the ballistic resistance of hybrid composite body
armor. According to the NIJ standard 0101.06, ballistic tests were
executed using a Daewoo pistol with a 9 mm Full Metal Jacjet
FMJ bullet from a distance of 5 m. After the ballistic examination
is carried out, the type of damage to the samples tested is checked.
The results of this test are intended to obtain an optimal composite
armor.
The main goal of this work is to prepare two different body
armors from hybrid composites and then study their ballistic
behavior experimentally and numerically using ANSYS R20. The
body armor consists of three different materials, which are:
3 mm of silicon carbide in the front layer, 10 pre-preg of fiber-
reinforced polymer (Kevlar or ultra-high molecular weight poly-
ethylene UHMWPE reinforced epoxy type Sikafloor-156) in the
middle layer, and finally, 2 mm of 5074 Al-alloy in the back layer.
This design was generated to provide the required protection
against ballistics as a high-velocity impact with minimum cost,
weight, and thickness. The aim of using ansys Autodyn and explicit
dynamic is to calculate the amount of kinetic and absorbed ener-
gies and to compare the deformation amount with experimental
results.
2. Experimental work and simulation
2.1. Materials used
type Tawron was supported by Teijin Ltd., Japan. The specifications
of fabrics are listed in Table 1. The ceramic plate of silicon carbide
(SiC) was purchased from XIAMEN Innovacera Advanced Materials
Co., LTD, China. Plates of 5074 aluminum alloy, sheets of structural
aluminum were supplied from the commercial market, and epoxy
resin (Sikafloor 156) was purchased from Sika, Turkey. Sikafloor-
156 is a two-part epoxy resin with low viscosity and is solvent-
free. The mixture ratio of resin (A)/hardener (B) was a 3:1 wt ratio.
2.2. Preparation of body armor
Two samples of body armor were prepared in (30*30) cm2. They
consist of ceramic at the front layer, composite at the middle layer,
and aluminum alloy at the back layer. Sample 1 consists of one
layer of SiC, ten individual layers of UHMWPE reinforced epoxy,
and finally one layer of 5074 Al-alloy. Sample 2 consists of one
layer of SiC, ten individual layers of Kevlar reinforced epoxy, and
finally one layer of 5074 Al-alloy in the dimension of 30*30 cm2.
All types were prepared by hand layup by adding the hardener to
epoxy resin and mixing them in a weight ratio of 1: 3. Samples
are pressed into the glass mold (34*34) cm using mechanical pres-
sure with clamps for 24 h to expel bubbles and remove excess
resin. The samples were kept at room temperature for 1–2 days.
Epoxy resin adhesive was used to bond composite layers together,
while silicon rubber was used to bond ceramic layers with compos-
ites, and composites with aluminum sheets. The design parameters
of the prepared body armors are illustrated in Table 2.
2.3. Simulation
2.3.1. Modeling processing
The armor has been molded using numerical simulations with
Ansys Workbench version 20.R2; it includes two parts (3D model)
for the projectile and the armor with true dimensions. The model
was solved and modeling results were generated using Ansys
Explicit Dynamics with AUTODYN as the solver.

The UHMWPE woven fabric was acquired from Yixing Huaheng 2.3.2. The projectile
High-Performance Fiber Textile Co., China. The Kevlar woven fabric The projectile’s geometry was modeled and designed as two
parts. The core of the bullet is the inner part, and the bullet jacket
Table 1 is the outer part. The material of the core is steel and the cart brass
Specifications of Aramid Kevlar Tawron and UHMWPE fabrics [21].
for the jacket is full metal (FMJ). From Ansys’ explicit material
Property Aramid Kevlar Tawron UHMWPE database, the steel is assigned to the core and Cart Brass is assigned
Density (g/cm ) 3
1.45 0.97–0.98 to the jacket. The geometry of the bullet and the 3D mesh shown in
Tensile strength (cN/tex) 200 285.6–408 Fig. 1 were created with the Ansys Explicit Dynamics mesh mod-
Tensile modulus (cN/tex) 8300 9282– eler. Steel and cart brass have been modeled as explicit materials.
14280
Elongation at break (%) 2.5 3.5–3.7
Temperature range (°C) 204 80 2.3.3. The ballistic armor
Decomposition temperature (°C) 400 145–160 Body armor is a compound of three layers of different materials,
300 °C, 100 h strength resistance (%) 60–65 68–70 ceramic material, fiber-reinforced polymer, and Al-alloy. Each
Moisture absorption (%) 4.5 0.6
ceramic (SiC), and Al-alloy materials from Ansys’ explicit material
Wear resistance General Good
Solvent resistance Good Good database, and Ansys material engineering data are shown in Fig. 2
Acid resistance Bad Good required to be represented by fiber-reinforced materials. The
Alkali resistance Good Good armor’s geometry was modeled as solid material in Ansys Design
UV resistance Bad Good Modeler. The samples had (30  30) cm2 dimensions in x and y

Table 2
Prepared armors.

Samples Materials used Layers Thickness Total thickness Total weight

Sample 1 SiC 1 layer 0.3 cm 1.4 cm 1.8 kg
UPE/EPX 10 layers 0.08*10 cm
5074-Al alloy 1 layer 0.2 cm
Sample 2 SiC 1 layer 0.3 cm 1.1 cm 1.65 kg
KEV/EPX 10 layers 0.045*10 cm
5074-Al alloy 1 layer 0.2 cm

2
I.A. Saleem, P.S. Ahmed and M.S. Abed Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 1. (a) Bullet and armor geometry (b) 3D mesh of bullet and armor in AUTODYN.

Fig. 2. (a) Material designer of KEV/EPX (b) material designer of UPE/EPX.

direction, and the thickness of the samples varied as illustrated in
Table 2. The model of UPE/EPX and KEV/EPX was a macrohomoge-
neous, which assumes that all layers have the same geometry and
have orthotropic mechanical properties. The Ansys Explicit
dynamic mesh modeler was used to create the mesh of all layers
as a body mesh with high smoothing and default element size.
2.3.4. Analysis settings
Ansys workbench V20.R2 has been used to solve the model in
Ansys Explicit Dynamics and Ansys AUTODYN 3D solver. So the ini-
tial conditions of the ballistic test were simulated by determining
the initial velocity of the bullet components, which is equal to
307 m/s in the Z direction, and the support boundaries were in
the X and Y directions. The analysis end time was 1.1001*10-4 s,
and 1.1*10-4 s for samples 1, and 2 respectively, with a maximum
number of cycles equaling 8521, and 7641 for samples 1, and 2
respectively. In the Ansys model simulation parameters, bonded
contact was established between all layers. The Finite element
method calculates mass and momentum conservation rules in
Lagrangian form using boundary initial conditions. The user has
to specify the mechanical parameters and failure responses of
the materials simulated in the code, and the program will calculate
and display the stresses in terms of internal energy, pressure, and
volume [14]. The code may also deal with several stress types, such
as equivalent shear stress and (von Mises) stress. The solution out-
put sets compute the overall and Z-directional deformation of the
stack layers to determine the system’s ballistic behavior. In the
material modeling section, the mechanical properties and failure
situations were depicted. Von Mises stress was also set to display
the overall system’s residual stress.

3
I.A. Saleem, P.S. Ahmed and M.S. Abed
Fig. 3. Ballistic Test Setup.
2.4. Ballistic test
Personal body armor must be manufactured under interna-
tional standards (National Institute of Justice NIJ-0101.06). The
main purpose of ballistic armor is to prevent the penetration of a
bullet. In addition to protecting internal organs from non-
penetrating injuries, the Backface signature (BFS) indentation must
be smaller than 44 mm [15].
The NIJ 0101.06 standard was used to test two body armors.
According to the NIJ 0101.06 Level II-A bullet speed standard, in
shots from 5 m utilizing a Daewoo pistol with a 9 mm FMJ bullet,
the speed of a handgun was 307 m/s. The Ballistic Precision
Chronograph was used to measure the velocity of the projectile
located between the pistol and the armor. A steel frame window
was used to support the sample with a 30  30 cm2 without back
support. The bullet used was an FMJ bullet with a mass of 8 g and a
diameter of 9 mm. Depth of penetration is determined by caliper.
The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 3. After the ballistic
inspection, samples were cut and a cross-section was taken to note
the types of damage to determine the damage mechanisms.
3. Results and discussion
The simulation was studied before executing the ballistic test to
reduce time, experiments, and manufacturing costs. So the simu-
lated model could provide a clear indication of the shape and size
of the armor damage. Furthermore, the simulation model is cap-
able of predicting both total and directional deformations, as well
as the bullet’s and target’s residual stress.
Figs. 4, and 6 show sample 1’s and sample 2’s deformation in
real ballistic tests and simulations. The results in each case showed
the ability of a sample to stop the bullet without penetration. The
cross-section of the samples showed that the projectile caused
ceramic failure by ring and radial cracks (see Fig. 5), delamination
of the UPE/EPX layers, brittle crack of the KEV + EPX layers with
delamination, and plastic deformation on both the UPE/EPX layers,
KEV + EPX layers, and 5074 Al-alloy that caused cone shape forma-
tion on the back face of the layer. This is also called backface signa-
ture. The (BFS) was 13–13.5 mm, and 17.5–19 mm for samples 1,
and 2 respectively, which is within the permissible range [15].
From Fig. 4, it can be observed that the first projectile was able
to crack ceramic without penetration or perforation of the armor,
but it caused some delamination and plastic deformation of both
4
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
UPE/EPX and 5074 Al-alloy. While the second projectile was able
to perforate many layers of UPE-EPX without penetration, it caused
fiber matrix breaking failures, and larger delamination compared
with the first projectile, but the plastic deformation caused by this
projectile was small.
From Fig. 6, it is noted the first and second projectiles caused
ceramic damage, brittle crack and nonsignificant delamination of
KEV + EPX layers, and large plastic deformation of 5074 Al-alloy
without penetration. The second projectile caused a ductile frac-
ture in 5074 Al-alloy without penetration. The first projectile
eroded and its jacket separated from the core where the last
remained inside the KEV + EPX layers. The high adhesive between
KEV + EPX and 5074 Al-alloy was also observed.
The UPE/EPX layers absorb the majority of the energy in sample
1, while in sample 2 the ceramic absorbs the majority of the
energy. The damage does not extend to the composite backing
plate in a dramatic situation. This is because of the ability of com-
posite layers to provide structural support and load-carrying dur-
ing the post-impact period even after the ceramic has been
damaged. The silicon rubber between the ceramic and composite
layers delays the process of penetration and prevents damage from
merging [16].
The tip of the projectile was eroded. In sample 1, it looks like
mushrooms. Projectile deformation occurs when the projectile
velocity decreases. During a ballistic impact case, projectile defor-
mation and projectile erosion absorbed energy and caused a reduc-
tion in kinetic energy and velocity of the projectile [16].
Due to the greater lateral confinement of the impact region
when the ceramic face is employed as a single plate covering the
entire rear layer, ballistic efficiency is higher. However, projectile
damage can affect the entire ceramic plate, but with small tiles,
it just impacts the surrounding tiles [17]. This work used small tiles
of ceramic.
The fabrics used in body armor in this work are typically woven
materials with the ability to catch bullets by creating a network
around them. The kinetic energy of the bullet is transmitted across
the fibers by this network [18]. The number of warp (ends) and
weft (picks) in a unit of fabric length is defined by the ‘‘weave den-
sity of fabric” in woven fabrics.
The kinetic energy of the bullet (Cart Brass and steel) is 83.4 J,
while the internal energy absorbed by ceramic, composite, and
polycarbonate is 54.256 J, 53.43 J of SiC/UPE + EPX/Al-alloy and
SiC/KEV + EPX/Al-alloy respectively, seen in Figs. 7, 8 using the
I.A. Saleem, P.S. Ahmed and M.S. Abed Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 4. Result of body armors (a) front face of experiment test (b) front face of simulation result (c) back face of experiment test (d) back face of simulation result (e) cross
section of experiment test (f) cross section of simulation result.

5
I.A. Saleem, P.S. Ahmed and M.S. Abed
Fig. 5. Ring cracks and radial cracks of ceramic.
Ansys AUTODYN 3D solver. The remaining energy of the bullet is
dissipated by delamination of layers, deformation of the bullet,
and ceramic cracking. The results of the ballistic test and simula-
tion are reported in Table 3. The energy absorbed by the ceramic
material is more than that absorbed by fiber-reinforced composites
and even Al-alloy, which reaches 80.5%, 78.4% for SiC/UPE + EPX/
Al-alloy, and SiC/KEV + EPX/Al-alloy respectively, of the total
energy absorbed by body armor, as seen in Figs. 7 and 8 and Table 3.
The Velocity-Time curve is shown in Fig. 9.
The energy absorbed by UPE/EPX is larger than KEV/EPX, which
reach 9.66 J, while KEV/EPX absorbed 8.07 J, because the UHMWPE
specific modulus is higher than Kevlar also specific strength
of UHMWPE and tenacity are higher than Kevlar about 50%. There-
fore, UHMWPE has the highest ballistic performance [19].
If a comparison is made between the total energy absorbed by
the armors, it is found that the SiC/UPE + EPX/Al-alloy armor is
6
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
the best type. Also, despite the higher properties of Kevlar than
UHMWPE, the UPE + EPX showed better results in impact than
Kevlar-based armor. This is attributed to the significant effect of
thickness on ballistic impact, so the total thickness of the
KEV + EPX composite is 0.45 cm while the UPE + EPX composite
is 0.8 cm. These results agree with K. Krishnan et al. They mention
the capability of UHMWPE fibers to absorb energy is very high and
sonic velocity is high compared to aramid [20].
4. Conclusion
For ballistic structural armor, different designs and materials
were developed employing hybride laminate composites. In this
study, a 30*30 cm2 laminate plate sample was made up of three
distinct materials. To study the technical viability of the armor
design, the Ansys simulation tool was used to model ceramic, com-
I.A. Saleem, P.S. Ahmed and M.S. Abed Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 6. Result of body armors (a) front face of experiment test (b) front face of simulation result (c) back face of experiment test (d) back face of simulation result (e) cross
section of experiment test (f) cross section of simulation result.

7
I.A. Saleem, P.S. Ahmed and M.S. Abed Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

posite laminate constructions with (UPE + EPX, KEV + EPX) woven

fabric, and an Al-alloy layer. For verification, samples were sub-
jected to experimental testing. The findings revealed that SiC/UP
E + EPX/Al-alloy and SiC/KEV + EPX/Al-alloy can stop a 9 mm
FMJ bullet with relatively minor deformation. Simulation can help
minimize costs in the development of ballistic armor by predicting
ballistic behavior and design restrictions, as well as providing valu-
able insights throughout the product development process.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Iftikar A. Saleem: Methodology, Investigation, Software, Writ-

ing - original draft. Payman S. Ahmed: Conceptualization, Soft-
ware, Data curation, Visualization, Supervision. Mayyadah S.
Abed: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing, Supervision.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-

cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
Fig. 7. Internal and kinetic energy of material used in body armor.
to influence the work reported in this paper.

7.00E+01

6.00E+01

5.00E+01

Sic Int. Energy

4.00E+01
Energy (J)

Cart Brass Kin. Energy

3.00E+01
Steel Kin. Energy
2.00E+01
UPE/EPX Int. Energy
1.00E+01 Al-alloy Int. Energy

0.00E+00
0.00E+00 5.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.50E-01 2.00E-01
-1.00E+01
Time (s)

Fig. 8. Internal and kinetic energy of material used in body armor.

Table 3
Results of the ballistic test and simulation.

Samples Materials used Experiment test Depth of Diameter of Perforation depth Kinetic Energy of Absorbed energy
backface backface through composite bullet
signature signature
Sample 1 SiC + UPE/ Partial perforation (1) *1.3 cm (1) 8 cm (1) 0.34 cm Steel: 57.7 J Ceramic:43.7 J
EPX + 5074-Al without penetration (2) 1.35 cm (2) 7 cm (2) 0.78 cm Cart Brass: 25.7 J Composite:9.66 J
alloy Total: 83.4 J Al- alloy:0.896 J
Total: 54.256 J
Sample 2 SiC + KEV/ Partial perforation (1) 1.75 cm (1) 9 cm (1) 0.85 cm Steel: 57.7 J Ceramic:41.9 J
EPX + 5074-Al without penetration (2) 1.9 cm (2) 7.5 cm (2) 1.1 cm Cart Brass: 25.7 J Composite:8.07 J
alloy Total: 83.4 J Al- alloy:3.46 J
Total: 53.43 J

*(1), (2): refers to shot numbers.

8
I.A. Saleem, P.S. Ahmed and M.S. Abed Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

7.00E+01

6.00E+01

5.00E+01

Steel Kin. Energy

Energy (J) 4.00E+01
Cart Brass Kin. Energy
3.00E+01
SiC Int. Energy
2.00E+01 KEV/EPX Int. Energy
1.00E+01 Al-alloy Int. Energy

0.00E+00
0.00E+00 5.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.50E-01 2.00E-01 2.50E-01
-1.00E+01
Time (s)

Fig. 9. Velocity – Time curve of bullet.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the University of Tech-
nology/ Material department Engineering and Manufacturing and
Industrial Engineering Department – Faculty of Engineering/ Koya
University.
References
[1] A. Bhatnagar, Lightweight Ballistic Composites, Elsevier, 2016.
[2] L. Lakshmi, C.G. Nandakumar, Investigations on the performance of metallic
and composite body armors, Procedia Technol. 25 (Raerest) (2016) 170–177,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2016.08.094.
[3] D. Brown, U.S. Troops’ Injuries in Iraq Showed Body Armor’s Value. p. A28,
2003.
[4] T. Latourrette, The life-saving effectiveness of body armor for police officers, J.
Occup. Environ. Hyg. 7 (10) (2010) 557–562, https://doi.org/10.1080/
15459624.2010.489798.
[5] N. James, Body armor for law enforcement officers: In brief, Law Enforc. Body
Armor Backgr. Fed. Support Use, pp. 1–16, 2014.
[6] T. Børvik, M. Langseth, O.S. Hopperstad, K.A. Malo, Ballistic penetration of steel
plates, Int. J. Impact Eng. 22 (9–10) (1999) 855–886, https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0734-743X(99)00011-1.
[7] N.K. Gupta, V. Madhu, Normal and oblique impact of a kinetic energy projectile
on mild steel plates, Int. J. Impact Eng. 12 (3) (1992) 333–343, https://doi.org/
10.1016/0734-743X(92)90101-X.
[8] D.L. Littlefield, C.E. Anderson, Y. Partom, S.J. Bless, The penetration of steel
targets finite in radial extent, Int. J. Impact Eng. 19 (1) (1997) 49–62, https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0734-743X(96)00001-2.
[9] B.R. Sorensen, K.D. Kimsey, G.F. Silsby, D.R. Scheffler, T.M. Sherrick, W.S. de
Rosset, High velocity penetration of steel targets, Int. J. Impact Eng. 11 (1)
(1991) 107–119, https://doi.org/10.1016/0734-743X(91)90034-D.
[10] C.E. Anderson, B.L. Morris, The ballistic performance of confined Al2O3 ceramic
tiles, Int. J. Impact Eng. 12 (2) (1992) 167–187, https://doi.org/10.1016/0734-
743X(92)90395-A.
[11] S. Yadav, G. Ravichandran, Penetration resistance of laminated ceramic/
polymer structures, Int. J. Impact Eng. 28 (5) (2003) 557–574, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0734-743X(02)00122-7.
[12] A. Tasdemirci, G. Tunusoglu, M. Güden, The effect of the interlayer on the
ballistic performance of ceramic/composite armors: experimental and
numerical study, Int. J. Impact Eng. 44 (2012) 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijimpeng.2011.12.005.
[13] A.R. Bhat, Finite element modeling and dynamic impact resonse evaluation for
ballistic applications, Mumbai University, 2009.
[14] A.A. Ramadhan, A.R. Abu Talib, A.S. Mohd Rafie, R. Zahari, High velocity impact
response of Kevlar-29/epoxy and 6061-T6 aluminum laminated panels, Mater.
Des., 43 (2013), 307–321, doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2012.06.034.
[15] National Institute of Justice, Guide Body Armor: Selection and Application
Guide to Ballistic-Resistance Body armor, Ncj, vol. 247281, p. 104, 2014,
[Online]. Available: https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/selection-and-
application-guide-ballistic-resistant-body-armor-law-enforcement.
[16] N. Naik, S. Kumar, D. Ratnaveer, M. Joshi, K. Akella, An energy-based model for
ballistic impact analysis of ceramic-composite armors, Int. J. Damage Mech. 22
(2) (2013) 145–187, https://doi.org/10.1177/1056789511435346.
[17] A.L. Florence, Interaction of Projectiles and Composite Armor. Part II.
STANFORD Res. INST MENLO Park CA, p. 1969, 1969.
[18] J. W. SONG and B. L. (‘LES’) LEE, Fabrics and composites for ballistic protection
of personnel, in In Woodhead Publishing Series in Composites Science and
Engineering, Lightweight Ballistic Composites, A. Bhatnagar, Ed. Elsevier, 2006,
pp. 210–239.
[19] A.J. Ruys, Biomedical and Clinical Applications.
[20] K. Krishnan, S. Sockalingam, S. Bansal, S.D. Rajan, Numerical simulation of
ceramic composite armor subjected to ballistic impact, Compos. Part B Eng. 41
(8) (2010) 583–593, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2010.10.001.
[21] Catalogue from the company.