Jump to content


Photo

12.7X99 Vs Composite With "foamed" Energy-Absorbing Layer

armor composite foamed 50BMG

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 TTK Ciar

TTK Ciar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,985 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sebastopol, CA, USA
  • Interests:material engineering, composite armor, GPC, battletank technology

Posted 05 June 2019 - 1634 PM

Jacob Marx, Marc Portanova and Afsaneh Rabiei have published their findings regarding a composite armor structure consisting of a boron carbide faceplate, a "foamed" energy-absorbing interlayer and an aluminum backing plate, with most of their attention on the novel energy-absorbing layer.

Phys.org wrote up an article about their findings, though the headline is a little misleading.  The interlayer is not quite "foamed" like most people think of it, but rather a composite of hollow hardened steel microspheres sintered in a metallic matrix.

 

The mass efficiency of their system vs 12.7x99mm (Ball and AP) varies between tests, but averages out to about 2.1.  It's hard to tell from their figures, but my first attempt to calculate its thickness efficiency puts it at about 1.3.  I'd like to revisit that to get a higher confidence figure.

The article is here:
https://phys.org/new...unds-steel.html

Their findings were published in Composite Structures (2019).  I have a copy archived here:
http://ciar.org/ttk/...rabiei.2019.pdf


  • 0

#2 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,408 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 05 June 2019 - 1808 PM

Jacob Marx, Marc Portanova and Afsaneh Rabiei have published their findings regarding a composite armor structure consisting of a boron carbide faceplate, a "foamed" energy-absorbing interlayer and an aluminum backing plate, with most of their attention on the novel energy-absorbing layer.

Phys.org wrote up an article about their findings, though the headline is a little misleading.  The interlayer is not quite "foamed" like most people think of it, but rather a composite of hollow hardened steel microspheres sintered in a metallic matrix.

 

The mass efficiency of their system vs 12.7x99mm (Ball and AP) varies between tests, but averages out to about 2.1.  It's hard to tell from their figures, but my first attempt to calculate its thickness efficiency puts it at about 1.3.  I'd like to revisit that to get a higher confidence figure.

The article is here:
https://phys.org/new...unds-steel.html

Their findings were published in Composite Structures (2019).  I have a copy archived here:
http://ciar.org/ttk/...rabiei.2019.pdf

 

 

 

Her team also showed that CMF could stop a 7.62 x 63 millimeter M2 armor piercing projectile at a total thickness of less than an inch, while the indentation on the back was less than 8 millimeters. For context, the National Institute of Justice standard allows up to 44 millimeters indentation in the back of armor.

Perhaps they mean 44mm diameter indentation?  I find it hard to believe that a <25mm plate could have a indentation nearly twice the thickness of the plate projecting beyond the surface of the plate.  That would be some serious plastic deformation without perforation.


  • 0

#3 GregShaw

GregShaw

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,082 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Salt Lake, UT, USA
  • Interests:snowmobiles, guns, computers

Posted 05 June 2019 - 1840 PM

delete


Edited by GregShaw, 05 June 2019 - 1841 PM.

  • 0

#4 TTK Ciar

TTK Ciar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,985 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sebastopol, CA, USA
  • Interests:material engineering, composite armor, GPC, battletank technology

Posted 05 June 2019 - 1914 PM

Perhaps they mean 44mm diameter indentation?  I find it hard to believe that a <25mm plate could have a indentation nearly twice the thickness of the plate projecting beyond the surface of the plate.  That would be some serious plastic deformation without perforation.

That seems odd to me, too, but appears to be correct.

From https://www.ncjrs.go...iles/169587.pdf
 

Types I, II­A, II, and III­A armor are required to prevent penetration from the impact of six
bullets at specified velocities and locations for two types of ammunition. Two of the impacts in
each six-shot sequence must be at a 30º angle. Furthermore, the deformation of the backing
material (a measure of blunt trauma protection) must not exceed 44mm (1.73 in). The armor
must meet these requirements while both dry and wet.



My take-away there is that the standard imposes a limit unlikely to be surpassed by any armor system.  Maybe a multi-layer polymer film (UHMW-HDPE or PP) would stretch that much without perforation, or a flexible woven fiber aramid layer might deflect that much, but not a metallic plate.

(edited for brevity)

Edited by TTK Ciar, 05 June 2019 - 1916 PM.

  • 0

#5 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,408 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 06 June 2019 - 0613 AM

 

Perhaps they mean 44mm diameter indentation?  I find it hard to believe that a <25mm plate could have a indentation nearly twice the thickness of the plate projecting beyond the surface of the plate.  That would be some serious plastic deformation without perforation.

That seems odd to me, too, but appears to be correct.

From https://www.ncjrs.go...iles/169587.pdf
 

Types I, II­A, II, and III­A armor are required to prevent penetration from the impact of six
bullets at specified velocities and locations for two types of ammunition. Two of the impacts in
each six-shot sequence must be at a 30º angle. Furthermore, the deformation of the backing
material (a measure of blunt trauma protection) must not exceed 44mm (1.73 in). The armor
must meet these requirements while both dry and wet.



My take-away there is that the standard imposes a limit unlikely to be surpassed by any armor system.  Maybe a multi-layer polymer film (UHMW-HDPE or PP) would stretch that much without perforation, or a flexible woven fiber aramid layer might deflect that much, but not a metallic plate.

(edited for brevity)

 

Now I see the problem.  The article conflated the idea of using metal foam for vehicle armor with the standards meant for personal body armor.  It should be noted that contemporary infantry are wearing Type IV body armor.


  • 0

#6 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,828 posts

Posted 06 June 2019 - 1259 PM

See also:

 

https://www.scienced...211812814009365

and

https://www.scienced...263822317332956


 


Edited by KV7, 06 June 2019 - 1303 PM.

  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: armor, composite, foamed, 50BMG

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users