NEW ORLEANS, LA, SEPTEMBER 2226, 2008

EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

BODYWORK EFFECT (K-EFFECT) IN THE
UP-ARMOURING OF CIVIL AND MILITARY VEHICLES

F. Coghe, B. Kestelyn and M. Pirlot
Dept. of Weapon Systems and Ballistics, Royal Military Academy Renaissance Avenue 30,
1000 Brussels, Belgium

This study served to obtain qualitative and quantitative knowledge
about the so-called bodywork effect or K-effect (from its German
designation "Karroserie-effekt"). This phenomenon is mostly
encountered in applications where an existing vehicle is armoured by
integrating a ballistic kit inside the existing body work. It manifests
itself as a lowering of the ballistic limit (V50) of the armour
configuration when a thin metallic plate is placed at a small distance in
front of the armour. In this study the 5.56 x 45 NATO Ball (SS109,
M855) was used as the threat to the armour (high hardness steel plate).
Measurements of the ballistic limit for different configurations were
made. By the use of several techniques, different possible origins for
the body work effect were investigated. Flattening of the projectile nose
was identified as the main origin of the K-effect. This origin was
validated by firing adapted 5.56 ammunition (truncated nose), which
led to a considerable lowering of the V50. The result of this work could
have great repercussions for all people working in the field of up-
armouring existing civil and military vehicles, or working in the field of
testing, evalution and validation of vehicle armour systems. There
could also be an interest for people working in the field of ammunition
development, although only for very specific applications.


INTRODUCTION

For the up-armouring of light non-protected vehicles, as in the case of VIP
limousines or logistic vehicles to be used in conflict zones, typically an armour kit is
fixed to the original structure of the vehicle. In order to keep a low profile, these
armour kits are typically integrated into the existing bodywork, which makes the extra
armour practically invisible from the outside of the vehicle. Different solutions can be
found for this application, ranging from the integration of soft armour blankets to the
use of ceramic tile inserts. To achieve protection against military rifle ammunition
(e.g. the omnipresent 7.62 x 39 M1943 Soviet ammunition, used for the AK-47
Kalashnikov rifle) a weight (and cost) efficient approach is the use of high hardness
steel plates. Several manufacturers are producing this kind of ballistic steel plate. The
plates are produced by alloying the base steel and by giving them an adapted thermal
(quenching and tempering) or thermo-mechanical (rolling at intermediate
temperatures, possibly followed by a thermal cycle) treatment, which typically gives
them a hardness in the range of 400 to 600 (and higher) on the Brinell Hardness Scale
(HB). The higher hardness gives improved ballistic protection (by breaking up and
shattering an incoming projectile), while the lower hardness gives combined ballistic
and explosive protection due to the increased impact toughness of the metal [1].
In order to ensure quality and give proof of their ballistic protection level, the
plates are afterwards tested following a ballistic testing norm or a client testing
protocol. One of the most common used norms is the STANAG 4569 [2], in which the
resistance against standard (as opposed to armour-piercing) rifle rounds is checked by
proof firing of 7.62 x 51 NATO Ball, 5.56 x 45 NATO Ball (SS109) and 5.56 x 45
M193 ammunition (corresponding to the so-called Level I protection level, a typical
protection level for up-armoured standard vehicles).
Undisclosed reports have mentioned on several occasions (during testing or in
operations) the perforation of up-armoured vehicles by impacts that were perceived as
a lower threat to the armour, than the one it was proof tested for. In some of these
instances origins of the failing of the armour system could be traced back to be due to
the so-called bodywork effect. As the name implies this effect is due to the integration
of the armour kit in an existing bodywork, and means that the ballistic limit of the
combined bodywork plate and armour plate are lower than the ballistic limit of the
armour plate on itself. At least one report suggests that this is due to the flattening of
the nose of the projectile while passing first through the thin plate of the bodywork,
causing a shift of penetration mechanism from (due to the high hardness already
limited) ductile hole growth to a plugging mechanism when impacting afterwards on
the armour plate [3]. This suggestion was based solely on numerical simulation results,
without any experimental validation (except for the lowered ballistic limit). Other
suggestions for the origin of the bodywork effect include the higher energy density
that would be reached during the impact on the armour plate by the loss of the
projectile envelope (jacket) during the perforation of the first thin bodywork plate.
This work will show experimental evidence for the first explanation and will
invalidate both analytically and experimentally the higher energy density hypothesis in
the case of the 5.56 x 45 NATO Ball ammunition.


EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

Ammunition

As the body work effect has quite often been reported to appear with the use of
the 5.56 x 45 NATO Ball ammunition, this projectile was chosen as the threat. A
detailed description of this ammunition can be found in [4]. Figure 1 shows a general
overview. Although the 5.56 x 45 NATO Ball ammunition is often perceived as a
lower threat compared to the 7.62 x 51 NATO Ball (lower energy and lower
momentum), it is contrary to the 7.62 a semi-armour piercing round, due to the high-
hardness steel penetrator in the tip of the projectile. As the 5.56 has almost the same
energy density as the 7.62, the steel penetrator in a lot of cases gives it improved
penetration capability, especially against light and intermediate barriers. Although its
penetrator is made of mild steel and that it has a lower initial velocity, the same can be
said of the 7.62 x 39 M1943 Soviet ammunition.
In a second phase of testing FN 7.62 x 51 AP (P80) ammunition with an
extremely hardened steel core was also used. A general view of the ammunition is
given in figure 2.
Both types of ammunition (5.56 and 7.62) were tested in their standard
configuration, as well as in an adapted configuration where the tip was sawn off in
order to get a flat-shaped projectile tip (see figure 3). Cutting was done using a low
speed precision diamond cutting saw, in order to minimize the influence of the cutting
on the base material. Approximately 3mm was cut off both projectiles, in order to let
the plane of the cut coincide with the front flat part of the 5.56 steel penetrator. No
measures were taken to compensate for the (limited) mass loss due to the tip removal.

Plate Material

The armour plate used in this work was a Thyssen-Krupp Secure 500 ballistic
steel plate. The ballistic properties of this steel are given in table I. As it name implies
it has a hardness close to 500HB. The plate used was a 6.5mm thick plate. The
bodywork of the vehicle was simulated using a 1mm mild steel plate.



Figure 1. 5.56 x 45 NATO Ball ammunition (SS109), containing a steel penetrator (B) and a lead core
(A) in a brass jacket.



Figure 2. FN 7.62 x 51 AP ammunition (P80), containing an extreme high hardness steel penetrator
(with a small lead filling behind it) in a brass jacket.


Figure 3. Adapted projectile (a), refitted on original casing (b).


TABLE I. Ballistic properties of the Secure 500 ballistic steel [5].




Target Configurations

Different target configurations were tested with the aforementioned different
ammunitions:
1. Single 6.5mm armour plate
2. Single 1mm bodywork plate
3. Combined 1mm bodywork plate + 10mm air gap + 6.5mm armour plate

Ballistic Testing

All ballistic testing was performed following the guidelines of STANAG 2920
[6]. For both ammunition types, a base block with interchangeable chamber and
barrrel were used. Barrel lengths were respectively 550mm for the 5.56 ammunition
(giving nominal speed of 950m/s) and 550mm for the 7.62 ammunition (giving
nominal speed of 820m/s). For every configuration the V50 ballistic limit was
determined, using the method described in STANAG 2920. Initial velocity of the
projectiles was measured using double IR-optical bases. For the residual velocity
measurements a reduced IR-optical base was used. High speed photography was done
using a Photron APX high speed camera.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Energy Density Calculations

Based on the technical drawings of the 5.56 x 45 NATO Ball ammunition, an
attempt was made to calculate the energy density (ED) on first impact of the projectile
on the armour plate for an initial velocity of 1000m/s. By dividing the kinetic energy
of the projectile by the initial cross section, one can calculate this energy density for a
normal complete projectile and an adapted projectile consisting only of a steel
penetrator followed by a lead slug. This leads to the following calculations:

Case 1: complete projectile

( )
( )
m / kJ 3222
.
2
m 10 . 889 , 0
. 2
s / m 1000 . kg 004 , 0
.
2
diameter
. 2
speed . mass
ED
2
3
2
2
projectile
2
projectile projectile
=

=



Case 2: steel penetrator and lead slug

( )
( )
m / kJ 457
.
2
m 68210 , 2
. 2
s / m 1000 . kg 00324 , 0
.
2
diameter
. 2
speed . mass
ED
2
3
2
2
projectile
2
projectile projectile
=

=



The above calculations show that the loss of the jacket would not result in a
higher energy density on initial impact in the case of the 5.56 x 45 NATO Ball
ammunition. Other publications have also shown that the loss of the jacket has a
negative influence on the penetration capability of the FN 7.62 x 51 AP (P80)
ammunition [7], due to the loss of confinement of the lead slug. This leads to loss of
momentum behind the steel penetrator by loss of lead in the crater surface.

Ballistic Testing

First the ballistic limit of the single armour plate was determined against the
standard 5.56 ammunition. The results for the V50 calculation are given in table II.
The determined ballistic limit velocity, exceeding 1000m/s, would make the single
armour plate resistant against all currently encountered threats using 5.56 ammunition
(although variance of the V50 should be taken into account as well).
Next the ballistic limit of the full configuration (bodywork/air gap/armour) was
determined. The results can again be found in table II. The bodywork effect can be
clearly seen, as the ballistic limit velocity has dropped almost 40m/s, which makes
penetration of the full configuration by standard 5.56 threats possible.
In order to separate the influence of the bodywork plate on the impact
behaviour of the armour plate, the ballistic resistance of the bodywork plate was
determined independently. As the ballistic limit velocity of the bodywork plate was
below the minimum allowable exit velocity of the 5.56 ammunition, the V50 approach
was not applicable. Instead the average velocity decrease due to the perforation of the
bodywork plate for the nominal impact velocity was determined. This velocity
decrease was determined to be around 40m/s (see table III).
To see the influence of the perforation of the bodywork plate on the stability
and general condition of the projectile, high speed photography was used. Figure 4
shows the 5.56 projectile just after perforation of the plate. As can be seen, the
projectile stays stable and shows a flattened tip (flattening of the tip is very easily
accomplished, as in the standard 5.56 ammunition there is a small cavity just in front
of the already truncated steel penetrator). The bullet jacket is still solidly fixed to the
steel penetrator and lead core, confirming that an increased energy density due to the
stripping of the jacket of the projectile is not an explanation for the encountered
bodywork effect.
To confirm the high speed photography results, some soft recovery
experiments were done, where a projectile was trapped in a soft medium after
perforation of the bodywork plate. Figure 5 shows that these experiments confirm the
flattened tip of the projectile while the jacket of the projectile stays solidly attached to
the rest of the projectile.
In order to mimic the bodywork effect, adapted (see Experimental setup
above) projectiles were fired against the single armour plate. This resulted in a much
lowered V50 for the armour plate (90m/s lower). This proved that the changed
projectile tip had a significant influence on the penetration mechanics of the armour
plate. With the changed configuration for the 5.56 ammunition, plugging was the main
failure mechanism. Figure 6 shows a plug and the steel penetrator, recuperated after
perforation of the armour plate. On the plug the marks of the flattened projectile tip are
clearly visible.

TABLE II. Ballistic limit velocities (V50) for the different target/ammunition combinations.

1mm bodywork plate
10mm air gap Target 6.5mm armour plate
6.5mm armour plate
6.5mm armour plate
Ammunition
Standard Standard Flat-tipped
Impact
velocity
(m/s)
Perforation
(P/NP)
Impact
velocity
(m/s)
Perforation
(P/NP)
Impact
velocity
(m/s)
Perforation
(P/NP)
999.82 P 965.69 P 910.84 P
1000.71 P 965.12 P 915.81 P
999.56 P 970.77 P 908.78 P
1004.86 NP 964.12 NP 909.28 NP
1002.97 NP 961.05 NP 907.35 NP
1007.21 NP 956.84 NP 909.35 NP
V50 1002.5 963.9 910.2



TABLE III. Velocity decrease after perforation of a 1mm bodywork plate.

Target 1mm bodywork plate
Ammunition
Standard

Impact
velocity
(m/s)
Residual
velocity
(m/s)
971.24 929.53
977.19 933.19
971.60 933.45
978.34 940.12
964.64 925.8
Velocity
decrease
(m/s)
40.2



Figure 4. Standard projectile after perforation of 1mm mild steel plate.




Figure 5. Standard projectile after perforation of 1mm mild steel plate and soft recovery.


Figure 6. Target plug (left) and penetrator (right) after impact of a flat-tipped projectile.

Further evidence for the changed projectile tip causing the bodywork effect
lies in the fact that the ballistic limit velocity for the complete configuration (960m/s)
is approximately (a little higher, probably due to the non-ideal flattening of the
projectile while perforating the first plate) the sum of the velocity decrease caused by
the presence of the bodywork plate (40m/s) and the ballistic limit velocity of the
armour plate against the flat-tipped projectiles (910m/s).
In order to see if the flattening of the projectile tip could be used in a beneficial
way for special purpose armour-piercing ammunition, the same experiment was
undertaken with FN 7.62 x 51 AP ammunition (P80). This ammunition has a high
hardness steel penetrator (exceeding 800HB). For this ammunition no shift in
penetration mechanism nor lowering of the ballistic limit velocity of the single armour
plate was detected for the similarly adapted projectiles (truncated tip). Further research
will have to elucidate this behaviour.


CONCLUSIONS

The bodywork effect encountered with high hardness ballistic steels subjected
to impacts from 5.56 x 45 NATO Ball ammunition has its origins in the changed, i.e.
flattened, projectile tip due to the perforation of the first thin bodywork plate. This
causes a further shift towards plugging as the main failure mechanism during
perforation of the armour plate. This leads to a lower energy absorption and
consequently to a lowered ballistic limit velocity.
This bodywork effect can lead to overestimation of the ballistic protection
given by an up-armoured vehicle, if only the ballistic kit has been tested instead of the
total vehicle configuration. It is also important to note that light armoured vehicles
with a ballistic protection based solely on high hardness steels could be perforated by
slightly adapted projectiles (adaptation that is possible on a large scale with light
machinery), which the vehicle was thought to be resistant against based on ballistic
proof testing.


REFERENCES

1. Meyer, L., 2008, Zur Rolle der Zhigkeit bei Blast-Belastung, presented at Unions 2. Tag der
Ballistik, April 17.
2. STANAG 4569, 2004, Protection levels for occupants of logistic and light armoured vehicles,
NATO Standardization Agency, Annex A.
3. Adams, B. 2003, Simulation of ballistic impacts on armored civil vehicles, Master thesis, Eindhoven
University of Technology, p. 6568.
4. Hogg, I. 1986, Janes Infantry Weapons 198687, 12
th
edition, Janes Publishing Company, p. 362
363.
5. http://www.thyssenkrupp-steel.com/upload/binarydata_tkscsd4cms/27/56/00/00/00/00/5627/
SECURE_500__WB_1943__englisch.pdf.
6. STANAG 2920, 2003, Ballistic test method for personal armour materials and combat clothing,
NATO Standardization Agency.
7. Nsiampa, N., Dyckmans, G., Chabotier, A., 2007, Impact of 7.62 mm AP ammunition into
aluminium 5083 plates, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Ballistics, p. 1297
1304.