Validation of a Simple Go/No-Go Damage Detection System for Personal Ceramic Body Armor Using Pressure Sensitive Film Jason Fisher Iowa State University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Graduate Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2011 Validation of a simple go/no-go damage detection system for personal ceramic body armor using pressure sensitive film Jason Fisher Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of the Aerospace Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Fisher, Jason, "Validation of a simple go/no-go damage detection system for personal ceramic body armor using pressure sensitive film" (2011). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 10300. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/10300 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Validation of a simple go/no-go damage detection system for personal ceramic body armor using pressure sensitive film by Jason Travis Fisher A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Major: Engineering Mechanics Program of Study Committee: Dale Chimenti, Major Professor Wei Hong Nicola Bowler Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2011 Copyright c Jason Travis Fisher, 2011. All rights reserved. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . iv LIST OF FIGURES . v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . x ABSTRACT . xi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION . 1 CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . 3 2.1 Personnel ceramic body armor . .3 2.2 Development of ceramic armor . .4 2.3 Current NDE . 11 2.4 Pressure sensitive dye indicator film . 13 CHAPTER 3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURE . 16 3.1 Impact experiments and testing . 16 3.2 Numerical modeling . 21 3.3 Analytical modeling . 22 3.4 Ballistic experiments . 23 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . 24 4.1 Impact experiments . 24 4.2 PSF experiments . 32 4.3 Numerical modeling . 43 4.4 Analytical modeling . 49 4.5 Ballistic experiments . 51 iii CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS . 54 APPENDIX A. NUMERICAL RESULTS: SMALL IMPACTOR . 58 APPENDIX B. NUMERICAL RESULTS: MEDIUM IMPACTOR . 61 APPENDIX C. NUMERICAL RESULTS: LARGE IMPACTOR . 64 APPENDIX D. ANALYTICAL RESULTS: SMALL IMPACTOR . 67 APPENDIX E. ANALYTICAL RESULTS: MEDIUM IMPACTOR . 69 APPENDIX F. ANALYTICAL RESULTS: LARGE IMPACTOR . 71 APPENDIX G. X-RAYS OF ARMOR PANELS PRIOR TO AND POST- BALLISTICS IMPACT . 73 APPENDIX H. DETAILED OUTLINE OF EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE 77 H.1 Equipment . 77 H.2 Experimental procedure . 78 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 81 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Properties of attainable impacts using experimental setup. 19 Table 3.2 Constants used in analytical model for each impactor. 23 Table 4.1 Pressure values corresponding to PSF saturation levels. 32 Table 4.2 Pressure values calculated from force transducer data and area. 42 Table 4.3 Comparison of pressure calculated from force transducer and from indi- cations on PSF. 42 Table 4.4 Comparison of trend line slopes of peak accelerations for numerical and experimental data. 48 Table 4.5 Comparison of peak acceleration values for numerical and experimental data. 49 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Bullet defeat process . .8 Figure 2.2 Make up of PSF . 14 Figure 2.3 Sample image of PSF . 14 Figure 3.1 Setup for drop test experiments. 17 Figure 3.2 Impactors used in impact experiments. 18 Figure 3.3 CPR manikin employed during impact testing . 20 Figure 3.4 Chest deflection for 90% male, CPR manikin, and hybrid III dummy. 21 Figure 3.5 Ansys model. 22 Figure 4.1 Impactor acceleration data for a range of drop heights . 26 Figure 4.2 Comparison of force and acceleration data . 27 Figure 4.3 Peak acceleration values and their trend lines for experimental data . 28 Figure 4.4 Impactor displacement profiles . 29 Figure 4.5 Comparison of an undamaged and damaged ceramic armor panel . 30 Figure 4.6 Acceleration data for undamaged and damaged panels . 31 Figure 4.7 Saturation scale for PSF . 33 Figure 4.8 PSF for small impactor, 12" drop . 34 Figure 4.9 PSF for small impactor, 24" drop . 35 Figure 4.10 PSF for small impactor, 36" drop . 36 Figure 4.11 PSF for small impactor, 48" drop . 37 Figure 4.12 PSF for large impactor, 12" drop . 38 Figure 4.13 PSF for large impactor, 24" drop . 39 Figure 4.14 PSF for large impactor, 36" drop . 40 vi Figure 4.15 PSF for large impactor, 48" drop . 41 Figure 4.16 Comparison of accelerations for numerical model and experimental data 44 Figure 4.17 Experimental and numerical acceleration profiles for large impactor . 45 Figure 4.18 Impactor displacement profiles from numerical model . 46 Figure 4.19 Peak acceleration values from numerical models . 47 Figure 4.20 Comparison of accelerations for analytical model and experimental data 50 Figure 4.21 X-rays of a damaged and undamaged armor panel after ballistic impact 52 Figure 4.22 X-rays of a damaged armor panel prior to and post ballistic impact . 53 Figure A.1 Experimental accelerations for small impactor . 58 Figure A.2 Numerical accelerations for small impactor . 58 Figure A.3 Numerical accelerations for small impactor from a 6" drop . 59 Figure A.4 Numerical accelerations for small impactor from a 12" drop . 59 Figure A.5 Numerical accelerations for small impactor from a 18" drop . 59 Figure A.6 Numerical accelerations for small impactor from a 24" drop . 59 Figure A.7 Numerical accelerations for small impactor from a 30" drop . 59 Figure A.8 Numerical accelerations for small impactor from a 36" drop . 59 Figure A.9 Numerical accelerations for small impactor from a 42" drop . 60 Figure A.10 Numerical accelerations for small impactor from a 48" drop . 60 Figure A.11 Numerical acceleration for small impactor from a 54" drop . 60 Figure A.12 Numerical acceleration for small impactor from a 60" drop . 60 Figure A.13 Numerical acceleration for small impactor from a 66" drop . 60 Figure A.14 Numerical acceleration for small impactor from a 72" drop . 60 Figure B.1 Experimental accelerations for medium impactor . 61 Figure B.2 Numerical accelerations for medium impactor . 61 Figure B.3 Numerical accelerations for medium impactor from a 6" drop . 62 Figure B.4 Numerical accelerations for medium impactor from a 12" drop . 62 Figure B.5 Numerical accelerations for medium impactor from a 18" drop . 62 Figure B.6 Numerical accelerations for medium impactor from a 24" drop . 62 vii Figure B.7 Numerical accelerations for medium impactor from a 30" drop . 62 Figure B.8 Numerical accelerations for medium impactor from a 36" drop . 62 Figure B.9 Numerical accelerations for medium impactor from a 42" drop . 63 Figure B.10 Numerical accelerations for medium impactor from a 48" drop . 63 Figure B.11 Numerical acceleration for medium impactor from a 54" drop . 63 Figure B.12 Numerical acceleration for medium impactor from a 60" drop . 63 Figure B.13 Numerical acceleration for medium impactor from a 66" drop . 63 Figure B.14 Numerical acceleration for medium impactor from a 72" drop . 63 Figure C.1 Experimental accelerations for large impactor . 64 Figure C.2 Numerical accelerations for large impactor . 64 Figure C.3 Numerical accelerations for large impactor from a 6" drop . 65 Figure C.4 Numerical accelerations for large impactor from a 12" drop . 65 Figure C.5 Numerical accelerations for large impactor from a 18" drop . 65 Figure C.6 Numerical accelerations for large impactor from a 24" drop . 65 Figure C.7 Numerical accelerations for large impactor from a 30" drop . 65 Figure C.8 Numerical accelerations for large impactor from a 36" drop . 65 Figure C.9 Numerical accelerations for large impactor from a 42" drop . 66 Figure C.10 Numerical accelerations for large impactor from a 48" drop . 66 Figure C.11 Numerical acceleration for large impactor from a 54" drop . 66 Figure C.12 Numerical acceleration for large impactor from a 60" drop . 66 Figure C.13 Numerical acceleration for large impactor from a 66" drop . 66 Figure C.14 Numerical acceleration for large impactor from a 72" drop . 66 Figure D.1 Analytical accelerations for small impactor from a 6" drop. 67 Figure D.2 Analytical accelerations for small impactor from a 12" drop. 67 Figure D.3 Analytical accelerations for small impactor from a 18" drop. 67 Figure D.4 Analytical accelerations for small impactor from a 24" drop. 67 Figure D.5 Analytical accelerations for small impactor from a 30" drop. 68 Figure D.6 Analytical accelerations for small impactor from a 36" drop. 68 viii Figure D.7 Analytical accelerations for small impactor from a 42" drop. 68 Figure D.8 Analytical accelerations for small impactor from a 48" drop. 68 Figure E.1 Analytical accelerations for medium impactor from a 6" drop. 69 Figure E.2 Analytical accelerations for medium impactor from a 12" drop. 69 Figure E.3 Analytical accelerations for medium impactor from a 18" drop. 69 Figure E.4 Analytical accelerations for medium impactor from a 24" drop. 69 Figure E.5 Analytical accelerations for medium impactor from a 30" drop. 70 Figure E.6 Analytical accelerations for medium impactor from a 36" drop. 70 Figure E.7 Analytical accelerations for medium impactor from a 42" drop. 70 Figure E.8 Analytical accelerations for medium impactor from a 48" drop. 70 Figure F.1 Analytical accelerations for large impactor from a 6" drop. 71 Figure F.2 Analytical accelerations for large impactor from a 12" drop. 71 Figure F.3 Analytical accelerations for large impactor from a 18" drop.