Experimental Study of the GFRP Perforation Stochasticity Near the Ballistic Limit

Abstract


The work aims at experimentally analyzing features of the impact interaction of a steel spherical projectile with glass fibre-reinforced plastic (GFRP) specimens with the thicknesses of 4 mm, 6 mm, and 7.3 mm at the velocities near the corresponding ballistic limits. The experimental study was carried out in two stages. At the first stage, ballistic curves, estimations of V50 and limit perforation and non-perforation velocities were obtained based on the results of the first series of impact tests using the Lambert-Jonas approximation. At the second stage, a series of tests was carried out for GFRP specimens of each thickness, when the initial projectile velocity was selected so that it fell into the zone of mixed results to obtain the perforation frequency curves. Based on the results of more than 300 experiments, it was established that the perforation frequency curves for GFRP specimens with the thicknesses of 6 mm and 7.3 mm can be obtained using the normal distribution law. Also it was found that the ratio of the width of the zone of mixed results to the corresponding V50 estimation for two thicknesses of specimens was about 4%, which is significantly less than the scatter of the strength characteristics of GFRP specimens obtained during the static tests.

Full Text

Fibre-reinforced plastics based on high-strength synthetic fibres are used in many industries as a structural material. In some cases, a composite structure can be subject not only to static/cyclic loading, but also to impact. Under normal operation conditions, composite structures are most often subjected to low-velocity impacts (hail, tool drop, gravel from vehicle wheels, impacts from auxiliary equipment, birds, etc.). Similar phenomena often occur during the operation of aircraft, wind generators, ship elements and bridge elements [1, 2, 3, 4]. To provide further safe operation of composite structures, there are requirements for the residual static strength of composites in the presence of impact damages. In cases related to emergency situations, where the requirements for ensuring the integrity/tightness of the structure are imposed, the tasks of high-velocity impact interactions are also widespread [5-10]. For example, fragments formed by rotor blades fracture must be localized by the aircraft engine protective case to prevent the fuselage damage [5]. To date, a plenty of studies have been published on the experimental and computational analysis of the composite material impact loading features among which several review works [11-16] can be highlighted that quite fully reflect and structure the accumulated experience in this field. Despite the large number of publications devoted to FRPs impact loading, there are almost no works on the random nature of the perforation process of the layered composites under high-velocity impact. When a projectile interacts with a target, there are two outcomes that indicate the target damage, and they are perforation or non-perforation (failure or resistance) [17, 18]. It is believed that at each projectile velocity Vi the target behaviour has a binary result (response) U, where U=1 if perforation takes place and U=0 if no perforation occurs. There is also a zone of mixed results (ZMR), which is characterized by two limit velocities V0 and V100. When using a probabilistic approach, V0 determines the projectile velocity, corresponding to the zero probability of target perforation, and V100 determines the upper limit of the zone of mixed results and corresponds to the velocity at which the target is perforated with a 100% probability. When designing composite structures that can be subject to high-velocity impact, engineers are faced with the task of determining rational configurations of composite targets that would guarantee no perforation over the entire expected operating range of projectile velocities [19, 20]. In [19], using a simple protective barrier consisting of one steel plate as an example, it is presented that the solution to this problem comes down to determining the thickness of the plate for which the value V50 will exceed the design velocity VD by a certain amount. Figure 1 shows the dependence of target perforation probability on the initial projectile velocity. The average value of projectile velocity in the zone of mixed results is V50 (the projectile velocity at which the probability of target perforation is 50%), and the standard deviation σ characterizes the width of the zone of mixed results. Velocity V0 is calculated based on the results of ballistic limit tests. The permissible design velocity VD must be lower than V0 by the design tolerance value ∆. In fact, the value of ∆ is determined by the standard safety factor [19, 20]. Thus, when designing a structure, the value of the permissible velocity VD is lower than the value V0, then this configuration excludes the possibility of target perforation in a given operating range of projectile velocities. For simple structures consisting of, for example, a single steel plate, the width of the zone of mixed results can be quite narrow and amount to about 5 m/s. However, for more complex structures (multilayer and heterogeneous), which include structural composites, the width of ZMR can be several tens of meters per second [19]. Fig.1. Perforation probability vs projectile velocity The works [21-27] present various approaches to processing experimental data to obtain estimates of V0, V50 and V100. Unfortunately, it was not possible to find in open sources any estimates of the zone of mixed results width for FRPs, as well as data on the influence of target thickness on it. Meanwhile, this information is extremely important when constructing computational models of deformation and fracture of a composite under high-velocity impact, since ballistic curves are used to verify their parameters [28]. This paper presents an experimental study on the features of the impact interaction of a steel spherical projectile with GFRP specimens with the thicknesses of 4 mm, 6 mm, and 7.3 mm at the velocities near the corresponding ballistic limits. The experimental study was carried out in two stages. At the first stage, based on the results of the first series of impact tests using the Lambert-Jonas approximation [27], ballistic curves and estimates of V50, maximum perforation and non-perforation velocities were obtained for each thickness of specimens. At the second stage, another series of tests for each thickness of specimens, when the initial projectile velocity was selected so that it fell into the zone of mixed results was carried out in order to obtain perforation frequency curves. Based on the results of more than 300 impact tests, estimates of the zone of mixed results width were obtained, which can later be used by engineers and designers when creating critical structures potentially subjected to impact loading during operation.

About the authors

N. A Olivenko

South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation

E. V Leshkov

South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation

D. S Zaigraev

Russian Federal Nuclear Center - Zababakhin All-Russia Research Institute of Technical Physics, Snezhinsk, Russian Federation

V. P Matash

Russian Federal Nuclear Center - Zababakhin All-Russia Research Institute of Technical Physics, Snezhinsk, Russian Federation

S. M Ulyanov

Russian Federal Nuclear Center - Zababakhin All-Russia Research Institute of Technical Physics, Snezhinsk, Russian Federation

О. A Kudryavtsev

South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation

References

  1. Bouvet C., Rivallant, S. Damage tolerance of composite structures under low-velocity impact. In: Dynamic Deformation, Damage and Fracture in Composite Materials and Structures, Silberschmidt V.V. (Eds). Woodhead Publishing, Elsevier, Cambridge, 2016, pp. 7-33. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-08-100080-9.00002-
  2. Verma A.S., Yan J., Hu W., Jiang Z., Shi W., Teuwen, J. J. E. A review of impact loads on composite wind turbine blades: Impact threats and classification. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2023, Vol. 178, 113261. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2023.11326
  3. Sutherland L. S. A review of impact testing on marine composite materials: Part I – Marine impacts on marine composites. Composite Structures, 2018, Vol. 188, pp. 197–208.
  4. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.12.073
  5. Mraih H., Hashemi J., Kalfat R., Al-Mahaidi R., Lu G. Comparative Assessment of FRP Composite Materials in Structural Applications under Low-Velocity Impact Loads: A Review. Procedia Structural Integrity, 2024, Vol. 64, pp. 1402-1410. doi: 10.1016/j.prostr.2024.09.38
  6. Kurteyev V.A., Burdyugov S.I., Inozemtsev A.A., Lomaev V.I., Mozerov B.G., Sokolovskiy M.I., Shatrov, V.B. Strength computational and experimental analysis of turbojet fan case under the impact of a torn blade. PNRPU Mechanics Bulletin, 2017, No. 1, pp. 85–103. doi: 10.15593/perm.mech/2017.1.0
  7. Yu G., Li X., Huang W. Performance and Damage Study of Composite Rotor Blades under Impact. Polymers, 2024, Vol. 16, 623. doi: 10.3390/polym1605062
  8. Tsirogiannis E.Ch., Daskalakis E., Vogiatzis C., Psarommatis F., Bartolo P. Advanced composite armor protection systems for military vehicles: Design methodology, ballistic testing, and comparison. Composites Science and Technology, 2024, Vol. 251, 110486. doi: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2024.11048
  9. Wang K., Taheri F. A comparative investigation into the high-velocity impact (HVI) and compression after impact (CAI) responses of a novel 3d hybrid composite and carbon and glass fiber-reinforced composites. Composites Part B: Engineering, 2025, Vol. 292, 112075. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2024.11207
  10. Phadnis V.A., Roy A., Silberschmidt V.V. Dynamic damage in FRPs: From low to high velocity. In: Dynamic Deformation, Damage and Fracture in Composite Materials and Structures (Second Edition), Silberschmidt V.V. (Eds). Woodhead Publishing, Elsevier, Cambridge, 2023, pp. 165-193. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-823979-7.00008-
  11. Li N., Du J., Lee H.M., Liu W., Zheng Y., Lee H.P. Damage characterization and modelling of FRP laminated composites subjected to external edge-on impact. Composites Part B, 2024, Vol. 287, 111879. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2024.11187
  12. Mouritz A.P. Advances in understanding the response of fibre-based polymer composites to shock waves and explosive blasts. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 2019, Vol. 125, 105502. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.10550
  13. Andrew J.J., Srinivasan S.M., Arockiarajan A., Dhakal H.N. Parameters influencing the impact response of fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composite materials: A critical review. Composite Structures, 2019, Vol. 224, 111007. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.11100
  14. Impact Engineering of Composite Structures, Abrate S. (Eds). Springer Vienna, 2011, 403 p. doi: 10.1007/978-3-7091-0523-
  15. Sutherland L.S. A review of impact testing on marine composite materials: Part II – Impact event and material parameters. Composite Structures, 2018, Vol. 188, pp. 503-511. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.01.04
  16. Sutherland L.S. A review of impact testing on marine composite materials: Part III - Damage tolerance and durability. Composite Structures, 2018, Vol. 188, pp. 512–518.
  17. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.01.04
  18. Davies G.A.O., Olsson R. Impact on composite structures. The Aeronautical Journal, 2004, Vol. 108, No. 1089, pp. 541–563. doi: 10.1017/S0001924000000385
  19. Tahenti B., Coghe F., Nasri R. Ballistic Limit Estimation Approaches for Ballistic Resistance Assessment. Defence Science Journal, 2020, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp. 82-89. doi: 10.14429/dsj.70.14122
  20. Johnson T.H., Freeman L., Hester J., Bell J.L. Comparison of ballistic resistance testing techniques in the Department of Defense. IEEE Access, 2014, Vol. 2, pp. 1442-1455. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2014.237763
  21. Crouch I. Introduction to armour materials. In: The science of armour materials, 1st Edition, Crouch I. (Eds). Woodhead Publishing. Elsevier, 2017, pp. 1-54. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-100704-4.00001-
  22. Reddy P.R.S., Savio S. G, Madhu V. Ceramic Composite Armour for Ballistic Protection. In: Handbook of Advanced Ceramics and Composites. Mahajan Y. and Roy J. (Eds). Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 1-46. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-73255-8_10-
  23. Dixon W.J. Mood A.M. A method for obtaining and analyzing sensitivity data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1948, Vol. 43, No 241, pp. 109-126. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1948.1048325
  24. Joseph V.R. Efficient Robbins-Monro Procedure for Binary Data. Biometrika, 2004, Vol. 91, No 2, pp. 461-467. doi: 10.1093/biomet/91.2.46
  25. Talbott D.V. Approaches to implementing deterministic models in a probabilistic framework. JSME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. Honolulu, Hawaii, 1995
  26. Mauchant D., Rice K.D., Riley M.A., Lebber D., Samarov D., Forster A.L. Analysis of Three Different Regression Models to Estimate the Ballistic Performance of New and Environmentally Conditioned Body Armor. National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2011. doi: 10.6028/NIST.IR.776
  27. Tahenti B., Coghe F., Nasri R., Pirlot M. Armor’s Ballistic Resistance Simulation Using Stochastic Process Modeling, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2017, Vol. 102, pp. 140-146. doi: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.12.00
  28. Neyer B.T. A D-Optimality-Based Sensitivity Test. Technometrics, 1994, V. 36, No 1, pp. 61-70. doi: 10.2307/126919
  29. Lambert J.P. Jonas G.H. Towards standardization in terminal ballistics testing: Velocity representation: BRL Report No. 1852. U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratories. – MD.: Aberdeen Proving Ground, 1976, p. 51
  30. Kudryavtsev O. A., Zhikharev M. V., Olivenko N. A. Creation and verification of computational models for analysis of the mechanical behaviour of jet engines composite components under high-velocity impact: Main problems and basic recommendations. PNRPU Mechanics Bulletin, 2019, No. 4, pp. 68–79. doi: 10.15593/PERM.MECH/2019.4.0
  31. Kudryavtsev О. A., Ignatova A. V., Olivenko N. A. The influence of thickness on residual flexural strength of composite with low-velocity impact damages: experimental study. PNRPU Mechanics Bulletin, 2021, No. 3, pp. 6-11. doi: 10.15593/perm.mech/2021.3.0
  32. Sapozhnikov S.B. Kudryavtsev O.A. Kompaktnyi razgonnyi stend dlia ballisticheskikh ispytaniy [Compact accelerator for ballistic testing]. Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series “Mechanical Engineering Industry”, 2012, Vol. 20, No. 33, pp. 139-14

Statistics

Views

Abstract - 9

PDF (Russian) - 3

Cited-By


PlumX


Copyright (c) 2025 Olivenko N.A., Leshkov E.V., Zaigraev D.S., Matash V.P., Ulyanov S.M., Kudryavtsev О.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies