f101 Posted February 25, 2005 Posted February 25, 2005 Question about effectiveness of this material as the protection against HEAT and hi-speed (1500+ msec) KE rounds. Is it OK to suggest that BC volume effectiveness is something like 1,3 against HEAT and 1,5 against hi-speed KE (if 20+ mm metal cover and backing layers are provided) ?
Paul Lakowski Posted February 25, 2005 Posted February 25, 2005 Question about effectiveness of this material as the protection against HEAT and hi-speed (1500+ msec) KE rounds. Is it OK to suggest that BC volume effectiveness is something like 1,3 against HEAT and 1,5 against hi-speed KE (if 20+ mm metal cover and backing layers are provided) ?148953[/snapback] heres what I have in my files refering to penetration into Boron Carbide , sorry no hard figures on shaped charge effects. [ Ballistic limit thickness to stop a LMG= 7.62mm APM2 @ muzzle] 19mm B4C/Kevlar @ 0° = 15mm RHAe [LMG] = 0.79 Te15mm B4C/Kevlar @ 30°= 12mm RHAe [LMG] = 13.5mm LOS RHAe13mm B4C/Kevlar @ 45°= 10mm RHAe [LMG] =14.5mm LOS RHAe11mm B4C/Kevlar @ 60°= 8mm RHAe [LMG] =17mm LOS RHAe [ballistic limit thickness to stop a HMG= 12.7mm M2 AP @ muzzle] 38mm B4C/Kevlar @ 0° = 29mm RHAe [HMG]=0.75 Te33mm B4C/Kevlar @ 30°= 25mm RHAe [HMG] = 29mm LOS RHAe29mm B4C/Kevlar @ 45°= 22mm RHAe [HMG] =31mm LOS RHAe24mm B4C/Kevlar @ 60°= 18mm RHAe [HMG] =36mm LOS RHAe19mm B4C/Kevlar @ 70°= 14mm RHAe [HMG] =42mm LOS RHAe12mm B4C/Kevlar @ 80°= 9mm RHAe [HMG] =52mm LOS RHAe [ballistic limit thickness to stop a 30mm APDS @ muzzle]120mm B4C/Kevlar @ 0° = 74mm RHAe [APDS]=0.62Te110mm B4C/Kevlar @ 30°= 68mm RHAe [APDS] = 79mm LOS RHAe94mm B4C/Kevlar @ 45°= 58mm RHAe [APDS] =82mm LOS RHAe76mm B4C/Kevlar @ 60°= 47mm RHAe [APDS] =94mm LOS RHAe55mm B4C/Kevlar @ 70°= 34mm RHAe [APDS] =100mm LOS RHAe32mm B4C/Kevlar @ 80°= 20mm RHAe [APDS] =116mm LOS RHAe Darn I used to be able to formate charts for better reading using codes Pre & /Pre. It don't seem to work any more Here are the results of a battery of ‘normal angled’ impact tests from the engineering Journals.[Pre]Resistance relative to RHA Vs APFSDSRatio of thickness of ceramic to steel in target 1:3 2:2 3:1 SourcesResistance of Plexiglas / RHA 0.48 0.47 0.4 Int.J.Impact Engng Vol-17,pp 195-204Resistance of Pyrex /Steel 0.58 0.87 0.8 Int.J.Impact Engng Vol-23,pp 771-782 Resistance of Pyrex /Tungsten 1.06 1.12 1.16 Int.J.Impact Engng Vol-23,pp 771-782 Resistance of Pyrex /Aluminum 0.46 0.6 0.78 Int.J.Impact Engng Vol-23,pp 771-782 Resistance of fuzed Quartz/RHA 0.62[.9] 0.58[.78] 0.5[.62]Resistance of AD-85/RHA @ 1.7k/ms 0.96 0.99 0.89Resistance of AD-96/RHA @ 1.7 k/ms 0.96? 0.98 0.93Resistance of AD-95/SHS @ 1.7k/ms 1.2 1.07 1.05 Int.J.Impact Engng Vol-17,pp 409-418 Resistance of AD-95/SHS @ 1.3 k/ms 1.3 1.18 0.98 Int.J.Impact Engng Vol-17,pp 409-418Resistance of AD-95/RHA @ 1.5 k/ms 1.0 1.03 0.96Resistance of AD-99/RHA @ 1.7k/ms 1.04 1.08 ? Int.J.Impact Engng Vol-18,pp 1-22Resistance of AD-99/SHS @ 1.7k/ms 1.08 1.15? ? Int.J.Impact Engng Vol-18,pp 1-22Resistance of UO²-87/RHA @ 1.5 k/ms 1.04 1.6 2.0 [estimated] Adv Comp’93 pp 141-146Resistance of UO²-100/RHA @ 1.5 k/ms 1.22 1.8 2.34 [estimated] Adv Comp’93 pp 141-146Resistance of AIN /RHA @ 1.8k/ms 0.96 1.06 0.97Resistance of SiC /RHA @ 1.7k/ms 0.96 1.02 1.02Resistance of B4C/RHA @ 1.7 k/ms 0.93? 0.91 0.87Resistance of B4C/SHS @ 1.7 k/ms 0.? 0.87 0.81 [shock Compression of Condensed Matter 1997 pp917-920]Resistance of B4C/RHA @ 1.7 k/ms 0.? 0.76 0.71 [adjusted x 0.873]Resistance of SiC /SHS @ 1.7k/ms 0.? 1.07 1.04 [shock Compression of Condensed Matter 1997 pp917-920]Resistance of SiC /RHA @ 1.7k/ms 0.? 0.93 0.9 [Above figures adjusted x 0.873]Resistance of TiB² /SHS @ 1.7k/ms 0.? 1.34 1.6 [shock Compression of Condensed Matter 1997 pp917-920]Resistance of TiB² /RHA @ 1.7k/ms 0.? 1.17 1.42 [adjusted x 0.873] Semi Infinite penetration test into the following ….. APFSDS into Aluminum Nitrite ceramic target [AIN] offers 0.97 the resistance of RHA. APFSDS into Boron Carbide ceramic target [b4C ] offers only 0.82 the resistance of RHA.APFSDS into Silicon Carbide ceramic target [siC] offers 1.1 times the resistance of RHA. APFSDS into Titanium Diboride target [TiB²] offers 1.2 times the resistance of RHA.APFSDS into"Syndie’ target [ Composite Diamond] offers 2.2 times the resistance of RHA.APFSDS into DU ceramic/steel target [uO²-87] offers 1.93 times the resistance of RHA[/Pre]
f101 Posted February 25, 2005 Author Posted February 25, 2005 Thank you very much Paul. One more question: B4C/SHS and B4C/RHA means "self-propagating high-temperature synthesis" ceramic w/o any RHA backing and ceramic w. RHA backing or just two (B4C and B4C/SHS) different kinds kinds of ceramics with the same RHA backing ?
arcweasel Posted February 25, 2005 Posted February 25, 2005 Here are the results of a battery of ‘normal angled’ impact tests from the engineering Journals.[Pre]Resistance relative to RHA Vs APFSDSRatio of thickness of ceramic to steel in target 1:3 2:2 3:1 Sources148958[/snapback] These are linear effectiveness not mass right? Regards, Jay
Paul Lakowski Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 Thank you very much Paul. One more question: B4C/SHS and B4C/RHA means "self-propagating high-temperature synthesis" ceramic w/o any RHA backing and ceramic w. RHA backing or just two (B4C and B4C/SHS) different kinds kinds of ceramics with the same RHA backing ?148985[/snapback] Nothing as elegant as that. Just sandwich of semi hardened steel and Boron Carbide or RHA and Boron Carbide...the ratio indicates the proportions of each...IE 1:3 RHA/B4C , is one thickness RHA and 3 thickness Ceramic. The figures are thickness or space effectiveness figures.
D-R Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 Paul, extremely good data. In regards to the B4C and Kevlar tests, what are the thicknesses of each material? I am assuming that it is a combination thickness. Do you have any data for titanium? Thanks. D-R
TTK Ciar Posted February 27, 2005 Posted February 27, 2005 I second the motion! This data is nothing short of spectacular. A thousand thanks to you, Paul! -- TTK
arcweasel Posted February 27, 2005 Posted February 27, 2005 The figures are thickness or space effectiveness figures.149140[/snapback] Thanks for the data Paul, you saved me piles of effort. Jay
Paul Lakowski Posted March 3, 2005 Posted March 3, 2005 Many thanks, Paul! Where did you get this data?150650[/snapback] Various results of a battery of experimental results published mostly in the Int. J.Impact Engineering.
Davin Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 (edited) Paul,they are interesting for me!And how is the KE & CE value of Silicate? Edited March 9, 2005 by Davin
Paul Lakowski Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 If by silicate you mean something like Quartz, then I have some results but Silicates cover a wide range of materials. From the previous chart... Resistance relative to RHA Vs APFSDSRatio of thickness of ceramic to steel in target -- Resistance of fuzed Quartz/RHA 1:3 = 0.62[0.9] 2:2 = 0.58[0.78] 3:1 = 0.5[0.62][source ; Int.J.Impact Engng Vol-17,pp 198-204] Russian tests in Int.J.Impact Engng Vol-29,pp 385-390 showed a shaped charge resistance of Silicate glass at 1.22 Te @ 2.3 diameters standoff.
Davin Posted March 11, 2005 Posted March 11, 2005 Thanks Paul.Are there any tanks used diamond to form composite armour?
Paul Lakowski Posted March 11, 2005 Posted March 11, 2005 Thanks Paul.Are there any tanks used diamond to form composite armour?153183[/snapback] Even if it was a synthetic diamond composite it would still be way to expensive. Regular ceramics like Alumina is the same price as aluminum or hard steel, which are about twice the cost of RHA. Silicon Carbide is something like ~ 10 times the price of RHA and Boron Carbide is ~ 20 times the cost.
Davin Posted March 13, 2005 Posted March 13, 2005 Paul,what are the materials possiable used in Chobham armor?
ADML Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 Thanks Paul.Are there any tanks used diamond to form composite armour?153183[/snapback] B4C is very diamond like hence its difficulty to process leading to its cost.
ADML Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 Question about effectiveness of this material as the protection against HEAT and hi-speed (1500+ msec) KE rounds. Is it OK to suggest that BC volume effectiveness is something like 1,3 against HEAT and 1,5 against hi-speed KE (if 20+ mm metal cover and backing layers are provided) ?148953[/snapback] Space is the most mass effective way to protect against shaped charge and KE, the effectiveness of HE is very much dependent on the shape of the section you hit. Alot of the blast effect and heat can be negated by adjusting the pannel shapes. intoduction of perlite like materials in to the space within the electric armour can help is a hard penatrator tip is used. to punch through the outer skin
TTK Ciar Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 BTW, I calculated mass efficiency figures for those ceramic/steel combos Lakowski posted: The columns are: * ceramic used * backing used (SHS is semi-hardened plate, about 450BHN) * mass efficiency of 3 parts ceramic + 1 part backing, by thickness * mass efficiency of 1 part ceramic + 1 part backing, by thickness * mass efficiency of 1 part ceramic + 3 parts backing, by thickness * velocity of interaction in km/s fQrtz RHA 0.76 0.91 1.09 ? AD-85 RHA 1.12 1.38 1.54 1.7 AD-95 SHS 1.39 1.46 1.76 1.7 AD-95 SHS 1.50 1.61 1.64 1.3 AD-95 RHA 1.16 1.41 1.61 1.5 AD-96 RHA 1.11 1.33 1.54 1.7 AD-99 RHA 1.19 1.45 ? 1.7 AD-99 SHS 1.24 1.54 ? 1.7 UO-87 RHA 0.92 1.27 1.43 1.5 (probably slightly wrong -- density of UO-87 estimated as 12.0g/cc) UO-100 RHA 1.11 1.50 1.81 1.5 B4C RHA 1.12 1.38 1.78 1.7 B4C SHS ? 1.32 1.66 1.7 B4C RHA ? 1.15 1.45 1.7 SiC RHA 1.13 1.45 1.84 1.7 SiC SHS ? 1.52 1.87 1.7 SiC RHA ? 1.32 1.62 1.7 TiB SHS ? 1.72 2.40 1.7 TiB RHA ? 1.50 2.13 1.7 All numbers used and references can be found in this data hash:http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor.pr...ceramics.03.txt
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now