2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2022.110200
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ballistic impact response of monolithic steel and tri-metallic steel–titanium–aluminium armour to nonrigid NATO FMJ M80 projectiles

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The ballistic performance of the monolithic target was better at higher velocities than in contact-type target plates. 18 The authors Ranaweera et al 19 also confirmed fact that three-layered metal plates are poorly understood, and developing this topic, and investigated a targets composed of steel, titanium and aluminum layers impacted by non-rigid NATO FMJ M80 projectiles. Some penetration and perforation problems, including perforation metal targets with elongated rods were numerically solved in Kraus et al 20 The good correlation in terms the self-similar modeling Zlatin’s curve in dimensionless coordinates L/H (crater depth to the striker length) and E/Y (kinetic energy to the yield point) was obtained.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…The ballistic performance of the monolithic target was better at higher velocities than in contact-type target plates. 18 The authors Ranaweera et al 19 also confirmed fact that three-layered metal plates are poorly understood, and developing this topic, and investigated a targets composed of steel, titanium and aluminum layers impacted by non-rigid NATO FMJ M80 projectiles. Some penetration and perforation problems, including perforation metal targets with elongated rods were numerically solved in Kraus et al 20 The good correlation in terms the self-similar modeling Zlatin’s curve in dimensionless coordinates L/H (crater depth to the striker length) and E/Y (kinetic energy to the yield point) was obtained.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…A summary of seminal experimental impact results and discussions of basic penetration mechanisms is given in [1,2]. These studies characterize a number of plate impact perforation mechanisms as (1) fracture due to stress waves [3][4][5][6][7], (2) radial fracture behind a stress wave [5,[8][9][10][11], (3) spallation [9,[12][13][14][15][16][17], (4) shear plugging [13,[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25], (5) petaling [19,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32], (6) fragmentation [9,[33][34][35][36][37][38], and (7) ductile-hole enlargement [39][40][41]…”
Section: Introduction 1ballistic Impact Modeling and Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%