International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 159 (2019) 81–90

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmecsci

Influences of ceramic constraint on protection performances of

ceramic-metal hybrid structures under impact loads
Chao Tian, Qitian Sun, Xuanyi An, Ping Ye, Yongxiang Dong∗
State Key Laboratory of Explosion Science and Technology, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Ceramic-metal hybrid structures have drawn extensive attentions as a protective structure for their excellent pro-
Hybrid structure tection performances to defend penetration. In the present investigation, four hybrid structures were experimen-
Ceramic tally and numerically studied to determine the influences of the constraints on ceramic on their anti-penetration
Constraint
performances. It was found that the penetration resistances of the hybrid structures were significantly affected
Anti-penetration performance
by the size of ceramic, boundary constraint and connection mode of the substructures. Both suitable boundary
condition and appropriate connection mode of the substructures could provide relatively strong constraints to the
ceramic prisms to improve the performance, yet the connection mode of substructures affected the performance
more significantly. However, the penetration resistance of the structure with ceramic tile was slightly affected
by the boundary condition and connection mode of the substructures. In addition, all of four hybrid structures
exhibited much better anti-penetration performances than that of monolithic TC4 plate with the equal areal den-
sity. The better performances of the hybrid structures with monolithic frame suggest that suitable frames can
provide strong constraints on ceramic prisms, and thus can be potentially used to defend penetrations.

1. Introduction projectile penetration more effectively. It has been well demonstrated

The low material density and high compressive strength of ceramic
makes it an ideal armor material. However, the low toughness and low
tension strength make them hard to be used alone [1]. The compos-
ite structure, which can endow properties that are difficult to possess
by the single ceramic material [2], can effectively solve the problem.
Most of ceramic composite structures are layer structures and consti-
tuted with ceramic/metal or ceramic/composite materials [3–5]. The
studies of these structures have been mainly focused on their ballis-
tic performances, anti-penetration mechanisms, structural optimization,
etc. [6].
Great efforts have been made to develop ceramic-metal hybrid
structures with high protection performances. The conventional meth-
ods using new metal alloys, new polymer chemistries, and new glass/
ceramics composite material are usually high-cost and uncontrollable
processes [7]. Therefore, a variety of more economical and controllable
hybrid structures, such as sandwich structures and lattice structures
have been developed [8,9]. The sandwich plates with periodic lattice
cores, such as pyramidal truss, corrugated panels and honeycombs
possess superior bending stiffness, strength and shock resistance, as
compared with the monolithic plates of equal masses [10,11]. For
example, the sandwich structures filled with polymer [12], metal foam
[13,14], concrete [15,16] and ceramic inserts [17–22] can defend
that the lattice structures have drawn wide concerns for their perfect
performances. Extensive studies have been conducted on their fabrica-
tion process and protective mechanism with ceramic inserts [20,21,23].
However, their penetration resistances are significantly influenced by
the impact position [24]. In addition, this kind of structures, as well as
the two-layer structures, cannot effectively defend the penetration of
projectiles with high kinetic energies because of the weak constraints
on the ceramic prisms [22].
Unlike those in lattice structures, the ceramic prisms in corrugate
structures are effectively constrained, and thus can defeat projectiles
well, even those with high kinetic energies. The corrugate structures
can potentially change the projectile trajectory because of their in-
homogeneity in the penetration direction. Many corrugate structures
have been designed and studied for their high performances in defend-
ing penetration [19,25–27]. Especially, the aluminum corrugate sand-
wich structures with ceramic inserts have been widely studied upon
their fabrication process, protective mechanism and structural optimiza-
tion etc. [19,25,28]. The frame in a corrugate structure can effectively
constrain the ceramic inserts and limit the damage range of the tar-
get, which provides the additional effect to defend multiple impacts.
However, the performances of many structures are significantly influ-
enced by the impact positions, and thus can perform even worse than
those of metal plates with the equal areal density at the weak positions

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dongyongx@bit.edu.cn (Y. Dong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.05.042
Received 23 February 2019; Received in revised form 9 May 2019; Accepted 27 May 2019
Available online 27 May 2019
0020-7403/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Tian, Q. Sun and X. An et al.
Fig. 1. Detailed dimensions and structures of four hybrid structures.
[24], suggesting that the metal frame also limits the performance of the
structure.
In the previous work, we studied a typical SiC/TC4 hybrid struc-
ture in detail and found that its anti-penetration performance was ∼30%
higher than that of equal monolithic TC4 plate and barely affected by
the penetration position [26]. However, the performance of the struc-
ture was significantly affected by the frame material. In fact, we found
that the anti-penetration performance of both corrugated core structure
and lattice structure could be improved with suitable frame structures
and materials. A suitable frame can effectively constrain the ceramic
prisms during the penetration process, resulting in higher penetration
resistances. Due to the uncertainty and high cost to obtain suitable and
novel materials, efforts should be made to improve the frame structure.
The constraints that the frame imposes on ceramic inserts are mainly
affected by the boundary condition and the connection mode of the sub-
structures. A conventional corrugated core sandwich structure can only
provide a two-dimensional constraint, which limits the further modifi-
cations of the hybrid structure, especially for the lightweight structures.
Therefore, understanding the influence of the constraint on the anti-
penetration performance of hybrid structure is important for developing
high protection performance structures.
In the present study, four ceramic-metal hybrid structures were de-
signed and fabricated, and their ballistic responses to the penetration of
a vertical projectile with the mass of 30 g were experimentally and nu-
merically studied, aiming to understand the influences of constraint on
the anti-penetration performance and guide the further design of high
anti-penetration performance hybrid structures.
2. Target description
Four targets respectively with hybrid structures A, KJ, B and E were
designed and fabricated based on the preliminary optimizations. The
dimensions of target A and B were 120 × 110 × 19 mm, and those of tar-
82
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 159 (2019) 81–90
Table 1
Areal densities of four hybrid targets and TC4 plate.
Scheme A KJ B E TC4 plate (16.5 mm)
Area density (kg/m2 ) 72.1 72.1 73.4 73.4 73.4
gets KJ and E were 120 × 100 × 19 mm. Both targets A and KJ were com-
posed of a monolithic SiC tile with the dimension of 100 × 100 × 10 mm
and were confined by TC4 frames. The frame of target E was made
from a monolithic TC4 plate by removing five rectangle prisms of
16 × 10 × 100 mm [26]. Target B was composed of the front plate, ce-
ramic prisms and a TC4 frame. The frame of scheme B was fabricated
by removing five rectangle prisms from the surface of a TC4 monolithic
plate with the dimension of 120 × 100 × 16 mm. Two 120 × 16 × 5 mm
side plates were then welded onto the frame. SiC ceramic rectangle
prisms were made from monolithic ceramic tiles using a diamond blade
saw. The ceramic pieces were bonded to the interior metal walls of the
hybrid structure using the 460 two-component epoxy adhesive. The de-
tailed dimensions and structures of these structures are shown in Fig. 1.
Table 1 shows the areal densities of these targets.The densities of
TC4 and SiC are 4.45 g/cm3 and 3.2 g/cm3 ,respectively. The sectional
side plates are very thin, and thus are neglectable in measuring the areal
density.The maximum variation among the areal densities of these struc-
tures is ∼1.8%, and thus the areal densitites of these hybrid structures
can be considered same (Fig. 2).
3. Experimental analysis
3.1. Experimental setup
The experimental setup was consisted of the launching device, mea-
suring device, fixation device and recycling device. The steel bullet with
C. Tian, Q. Sun and X. An et al.
mass of 30 g and, whose detailed dimension was given in Fig. 3, was
launched by a ballistic rifle. The initial velocity of the projectile was
controlled by adjusting the mass of the propellant. A 6.5 g nylon sabot
was used to ensure the projectile impacting on the target normally. Two
groups of net targets were employed to measure the initial impact ve-
locity and residual velocity of the projectile. The target was fixed on
the edge of the length direction. Two high-speed cameras, which also
could be utilized to measure the projectile velocity, were mainly used
to record the deformation process of the target. A 2 mm thick PC mirror
was used to mirror the backplane of the target to the high-speed camera
for studying the damage mechanism of the backplane. The residual pro-
jectiles were recycled with the rubber panels. Fig. 3 shows the detailed
experiment setup.
3.2. Experimental results and analysis
Table 2 lists the ballistic test results of the hybrid structures and the
TC4 plate of equal areal density. To initiate the test, the bullet coated
with nylon sabot was launched toward the nets and targets. The nylon
83
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 159 (2019) 81–90
Fig. 2. Photos of structures A, KJ, B and E before the test.
Fig. 3. Experimental setup for ballistic test.
sabot separated from the bullet before the projectile impacted on the
first net target (Fig. 4). The projectile perforated the net target and gave
a significant signal to the oscilloscope to achieve the velocity. All projec-
tiles were normally impacted on the target expect for that on KJ scheme
with a 7° attack angle. Considering that the projectiles would be more
significantly deformed in the head if the target was not perforated, the
residual projectiles lengths were measured. The mass of some residual
projectiles were calculated with the residual kinetic energy and residual
velocity (Table 2A).
The projectile impacted on target A at the velocity of 842 m/s and did
not perforate the target, but caused a crack on the backplane. The crack
extended to the edge of target because the projectile was not impacted
on the center of target (Fig. 5a). In addition, the backplane was sepa-
rated from the frame due to the relatively weak strength of the welding.
The backplane in KJ target was almost sheared from the frame at edge
of the ceramic tile. The connections between the front plate and the
frame in the targets A and KJ were different, but both of them exhibited
minor deformations. Both of them were fixed at the edge of the length di-
rection, which explained their similar deformation ranges in the length
C. Tian, Q. Sun and X. An et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 159 (2019) 81–90

Table 2
Ballistic test results of the four hybrid structures and the TC4 plate of equal areal density.

Scheme initial velocity (m/s) Perforation or not Residual velocity (m/s) Deformation of the backplane (mm) Residual length (mm) Residual kinetic energy (103 J)

TC4 875 yes 440 – 37 2.91

A 842 no – 14 13 –
KJ∗ 885 yes 104 19 19 0.09
B-1 846 no – 21 23 –
B-2 931 yes 454 14 22 1.44
E-1 835 no – 14 25 –
E-2 854 no – 15 24 –
E-3 940 yes 395 10 22 1.25

Fig. 4. Normal projectile impacts on the targets.

Fig. 5. Photos of targets A and KJ impacted by the

projectile.

Table 2A plate from the frame had no significant effects on the protection perfor-
Comparison of JC parameters from literature and test. mance of the structure. Target KJ was perforated by the projectile, which
JC Par. A/MPa B/MPa n C caused many ceramic debris flew out from the backplane. In the whole
penetration process, ceramic debris did not fly out from the side direc-
Lee WS 1080 1007 0.5975 0.01304
tion (Fig. 6(b)). Therefore, the side plates in target A only contributed
Leseur D 1098 1092 0.93 0.014
SEO 997.9 653 0.45 0.0198 little to the anti-penetration performance of the target. The adhesive
Test 1010 1096.6 0.81 0.016 provided relative weak constrain to the ceramic. But the contribution
done by the adhesive can’t be obtained by the experiment results. The
debonding of the adhesive in target A indicated that the epoxy adhesive
did not constrain the ceramic prisms tight enough and the polyurethane
direction (Fig. 5). The experiment results listed in Table 2 and the dam- adhesive might be a better choice [29].
age mode of the backplanes indicate that ballistic velocities of A and KJ Fig. 8 shows target B impacted by the projectile at 846 m/s (B-1)
targets are slightly different. and 931 m/s (B-2), respectively. The side plates were separated from
The backplane was deformed and separated from the side plates the backplane because they were only weld onto the backplane and
upon the projectile penetration (Fig. 6(a)), causing a relatively large gap the binding was very weak. The deformation of the left side plate in-
between the backplane and the frame. However, the high-speed camera dicated that the ceramic prisms were separated from interior walls of
recorded only few ceramic debris flew out from the target (Fig. 6(a)), the TC4 frame, and the side plates provided a stronger side constraint,
mainly from the backplane, indicating that the separations of the front as compared with those in the target E. No deformation was found on

84
C. Tian, Q. Sun and X. An et al.
Fig. 7. Photos of the ceramic debris in target A impacted by the projectile.
the right side plate (Fig. 4), and only partial of the ceramic prisms was
damaged (Fig. 8) because of the confinement of the ceramic prisms by
the steel frame. The ceramic prisms near the left side were almost com-
pletely damaged and ceramic debris flew out from the gap between the
left side plate and backplane (Fig. 9). Those near the right side plate
were partially damaged and remained in the frame. The prisms far from
the penetration position were almost intact. These observations demon-
strated that the confinement of ceramic prisms improved the protection
performance of the target and kept the ceramic prisms intact.
Unlike the ceramic prisms in target B, the ceramic tile in target A
was completely damaged, although more large ceramic fragments were
found than small fragments (Fig. 7). However, the largest fragments
were even smaller than some of the fragments in target B-2. These re-
sults suggest that the hybrid structure can inhibit the damage of the
ceramic inserts and provide potentials to defend multiple impacts. In
addition, both transverse crack and longitudinal crack were found in
targets A, KJ and E, but only transverse crack occurred in target B-1.
The experiment result also showed that the tranverse crack zone is near
the node between the vertical plate and backplane (Fig. 8). Therefore,
the propagation of crack is affected by the properties of the frame. The
different cracks formed in targets B-2 and E also indicate that the im-
pact velocity and penetration position can affect the failure mechanism
of the backplane.
The side plates in structure A were not deformed by the impact
(Fig. 9(b)). Structure A was confined with a TC4 frame and the thick-
ness of its side plates was same as that in structure B. The ceramic tile
in target A was crushed by the projectile impact. The ceramic debris
could move around, and thus did not drive the side plate to deform.
The different deformations of structures A and KJ indicated that the
constraint that the side plate imposed on the ceramic insert did not
85
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 159 (2019) 81–90
Fig. 6. High-speed camera images showing the
penetration process of target A (a) and KJ tar-
get (b).
significantly affect the anti-penetration performance (Table 2). In the
structure B, the ceramic debris were confined by the vertical plates,
which forced the ceramic debris to drive and extrude ceramic prisms
from the sides of the TC4 frame. The different deformations of struc-
tures A and B indicated that the ceramic prisms in the hybrid structure
were easily extruded from the frame and the side constraint could signif-
icantly affect the anti-penetration performance of the hybrid structure
(Fig. 10).
In the previous work, we investigated the penetration resistance
mechanisms of structure E in detail [26]. Compared with that of struc-
ture B, the backplane of structure E is more easily sheared, similar to
that of structure KJ. In structure B, the vertical plates were not connected
with the front plate, which caused the major deformation of the back-
plane (Fig. 8). In addition, the separation of the front plate in structure B
might affect the constitutive property of the target and weaken the con-
straint of the ceramic prisms in the length direction of the target. The
penetration position of structure E deviated from the center, and thus
the ceramic prisms near the impact position were completely crushed
and flew away from TC4 frame. However, the penetration resistance of
structure E is higher than that of structure B (Table 4), suggesting that
the connection mode of the substructures can also affect the protection
performance of the target.
4. Numerical analysis
4.1. Three-dimensional finite element model
The penetration processes were modeled in the three-dimensional
explicit finite element (FE) software ANSYS/Ls-dyna. To ensure the ac-
curacy and efficiency of the simulation model, the element size was
C. Tian, Q. Sun and X. An et al.
optimized to be 0.5 mm (Fig. 11). The contact between the projectile and
target was modeled by the ‘∗ contact_eroding_surface_to_surface’. There
is a layer of adhesive between the ceramic and TC4 frame. Due to the low
thickness of the adhesive layer, the epoxy adhesive was simulated with
‘∗ contact_tied_surface_to_surface_failure’, instead of using a thin layer
FE. The Johnson-Cook model (JC), ∗ MAT_15 in the Ls-dyna, was used to
simulate the TC4 frame and steel projectile, and the Johnson-Holmquist-
Ceramics (JH-2), ∗ MAT_110 in the Ls-dyna, was utilized to simulate the
ceramic inserts.
To ensure the accuracy of the simulation, the material parameters
have to be taken into consideration. The experimental results showed
that the crack occurred on the backplane of the frame and many vertical
plates also broke from the node and the center. Therefore, the param-
86
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 159 (2019) 81–90
Fig. 8. Photos of targets B impacted by the pro-
jectile.
Fig. 9. Photos of (a) the targets B and (b) A impacted
by the projectile.
eters of TC4 significantly affect the accuracy of the numerical model.
Lee W S [30], Leseur D [31] and SEO [32] studied the TC4 material and
gave their parameters for JC modeling (Table 2).The yield strengths in
these model are 0.99∼1.1 GPa, similar to that given by the provider of
our materials (1.01 GPa). However, the strain and strain rate parameters
are significantly different. Therefore, the parameter research mainly fo-
cuses on the strain and strain rate parameters in this section. Herein, the
split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) experiment was conducted on the
specimen with the diameter of 8 mm and the length of 4 mm (Figs. 12
and 13).
The parameters were calculated with the test data. In the JC ma-
terial mode, the strain rate parameter C was calculated to be ∼0.016,
closed to that mentioned above. Parameter B and n are 1096.6 MPa and
C. Tian, Q. Sun and X. An et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 159 (2019) 81–90

Fig. 10. Photos of targets with structure E impacted

by the projectile.

Fig. 11. Velocity curves of the simulation results with different element sizes. Fig. 13. Typical stress-strain curves of TC4 under different strain rates.

Table 3
JC model parameters for t12A steel and TC4 alloy.

Constants Steel TC4

3
Density,(g/cm ) 7.85 4.45
Shear modulus, G (GPa) 200 41.9
Static yield strength, A (GPa) 1.54 1.01
Strain hardening coefficient, B(GPa) 0.477 1.096.6
Strain hardening exponent, n 0.26 0.81
Strain rate coefficient, C 0 0.016
Reference strain rate, 𝜀0 (s − 1 ) 1.0 1.0
Fig. 12. Specimens of the TC4 material with the dimension of Φ 8 × 4 mm. Thermal softening exponent, m 1.0 0.753
Reference temperature,t0 (K) 298 298
Melting temperature, tm (K) 1763 1951
Damage constant, D1 2.0 0.05
0.81 respectively, similar to that reported by Leseur D. The projectile is Damage constant, D2 0 0.27
Damage constant, D3 0 −0.48
made of t12A steel and the ceramic is SiC. Both of them are widely used
Damage constant, D4 0 0.014
[22,26]. Their parameters used in this paper are shown in Tables 3 and Damage constant, D5 0 3.8
4 respectively.

87
C. Tian, Q. Sun and X. An et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 159 (2019) 81–90

Fig. 14. Comprasion of the numerical and experimental results of the backplane of the B-1target (a) and projectile (b) after perforated the B-2 target.

Table 4
JH-2 model parameters for SiC ceramic.

Constants SiC ceramic

3
Density,(g/cm ) 3.2
Shear modulus, G (GPa) 183
Intact strength coefficient, A 0.96
Fracture strength coefficient, B 0.35
Strain rate coefficient, C 0.0045
Intact strength exponent, N 0.65
Fracture strength exponent, M 1.0
Maximum tensile pressure strength, T (GPa) 0.75
Pressure at HEL, PHEL (GPa) 14.567
Damage coefficient, D1 0.48
Damage exponent, D2 0.48
Bulk modulus, K1 (GPa) 217.2
Pressure coefficient, K2 (GPa) 0
Pressure coefficient, K3 (GPa) 0

4.2. Numerical results and analysis

Fig. 15. Kinetic energy histories of the projectiles impacted on structure A and
Table 5 shows the comparison between the experimental and numer- KJ at 940 m/s.
ical results. The comparison suggests that the model can be used to effec-
tively predict the residual velocity and residual length of the projectile.
The experimental and simulated residual projectiles showed the similar
damage modes (Fig. 14), indicating that the material model and element
size could be used to simulate the projectile accurately. In addition, the
similar deformation heights and damage modes of the backplane also
demonstrate that the model can be used to further understand the anti-
penetration mechanisms and the experimental results of each target. In
the JC model, the flow stress increases with the increase of the hard-
ening constant B and decrease of the hardening exponent n. As can be Fig. 16. Structure B impacted by the projectile at three typical positions.
seen from Table 5, the simulation results obtained with the parameters
adopted from reference [26] are slightly different from those obtained
with the experimental parameters, but the model with test parameters
could predict the damage of target better (Fig. 14).
The ballistic experiments revealed that the ceramic debris in struc-
ture A formed under the impact could not force the side plate to deform
(Fig. 8). The simulation results indicate that the anti-penetration per-
formance of target A is slightly better than that of target KJ due to the
slightly different energy absorptions (Fig. 15), consistent with the ex-
perimental results. Therefore, the boundary constraint and connection
mode of the front plate and the frame contribute slightly to the penetra-
tion resistance of the hybrid structure constructed a larger monolithic
ceramic tile (Fig. 16).
It is obviously that the overall anti-penetration performance of het-
erogeneous structure B is affected by the penetration position. The cen-
ters of the ceramic prisms (PA) are the weak positions (Fig. 17), same as
those in structure E [26]. The energy reductions at different penetration
positions are ∼ 14.3% different, higher than those of structure E. These
results indicate that the connection mode of the front plate and vertical
plate influences the differences among the penetration resistances of dif-
ferent penetration positions. The separation of the vertical plate and the Fig. 17. Projectile kinetic energy curves of target B impacted at different pos-
front plate can greatly affect the penetration resistance of the target as sitions.

88
C. Tian, Q. Sun and X. An et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 159 (2019) 81–90

Table 5
Comparison of the experimental and numerical results.

Inc. vel. (m/s) Residual vel. (m/s) Deformation of backplane (mm) Length of residual projectile mm Residual kinetic energy (103 J)
Sch.
Ex./Nu. Ex. Nu. Dif. Ex. Nu. Dif. Ex. Nu. Dif. Ex. Nu. Dif.

TC4 875 440 475 7.9% – – – 37 38.7 4.5% 2.91 3.34 14.3%
A 842 0 – – 14 14.7 5.0% 16 19.1 19.4% – – –
KJ 885 104 143 36% 21 18.7 10.9% 19 22.8 20.0% 0.09 0.32 –
B-1 846 0 – – 21 21.8 3.8% 23 27.3 18.7% – – –
B-2 931 454 422 7.0% 14 13.2 5.7% 22 26.7 21.4% 1.44 1.81 25.7%
E-1 835 0 – – 14 12.4 11.7% 25 29.2 16.8% – – –
E-2 854 0 – – 15 13.7 8.7% 24 27.4 14.2% – – –
E-2t 854 0 – – 15 13.1 12.7% 24 26.7 11.3% – – –
E-3 940 395 378 4.0% 10 10.5 5.0% 22 25.2 14.5% 1.25 1.48 18.1%
E-3t 940 395 364 7.8% 10 10.1 1.0% 22 23.6 7.3% 1.25 1.42 13.6%

t represents the simulation results with test parameters.

Fig. 18. Numerical images of structure B impacted at two typical positions.

the target is impacted at PA. The backplane is more easily deformed and
the ceramic prisms beneath the impact position tend to separate from
the TC4 frame (Fig. 18), causing the weak penetration resistance of the
ceramic. The simulation results also suggest that the protection perfor- Fig. 19. Kinetic energy curves of the projectiles impacted on structure E and B
mance of hybrid structure B is lower at the center of the ceramic prisms under different boundary constraint. con., with boundary constraint; free, with-
(Table 5). The crack formed in target B-1 in the ballistic test (Fig. 8) and out boundary constraint.
that found by simulation (Fig. 18) indicate that the frame can affect the
failure mode of the target. The separation of the vertical plate from the
front plate caused by impacts at PC affects the anti-penetration perfor-
mance of the target less than that caused by the impacts at PA. It can
be explained that the projectile compresses the ceramic, and the nearby
ceramic prisms separate from the TC4 frame. Although the backplane is
significantly deformed, which causes the failure of the ceramic material,
it also absorbs more energy.
As stated above, the performances of both structures B and E are in-
fluenced by the impact position, and PA is the weakest position. There-
fore, the penetration resistance at PA was further studied. Compared
with those of structures A and KJ, the penetration resistances of struc-
tures B and E are affected by the boundary constraint more significantly
(Fig. 19). The penetration resistance of structure B can be increased ∼6%
with the side constraint, and that of structure E is increased 12% with
the boundary constraint. The only difference between structures B and E
without constraints is their connection modes between the vertical plate
and the front plate. The separation of the vertical plate from front plate
causes ∼14% lower penetration resistance as no constraints applied, and
decreases the penetration resistance ∼20% as the boundary constraint Fig. 20. Kinetic energy curves of the projectiles impacted on differnet targets
applied. However, the boundary constraint and the connection of the at 940 m/s.
front plate with the vertical plate together increase the energy absorp-
tion ∼35.7%, which causes the further crush of the ceramic prisms and In all, the penetration resistances of the four ceramic-metal hybrid
additional erosion of the projectile. These results suggest that both the structures are over 20% better than that of monolithic TC4 plate of equal
boundary constraint and the connection mode of the substructures can areal density, and structure E, which is ∼40% better than the equiv-
provide strong constraints on the ceramic prisms to significantly im- alent TC4 plate, exhibits the best anti-penetration performance. It has
prove the penetration resistance of a ceramic-metal hybrid structure, been reported that increasing the size of ceramic prisms can enhance the
and the connection mode of the substructures imposes more significant penetration resistances of ceramic -metal hybrid structures [19]. How-
influences (Fig. 20). ever, we found that, for the structure E, smaller ceramic pieces provided

89
C. Tian, Q. Sun and X. An et al.
higher penetration resistances than the monolithic ceramic tile because
of the boundary constraint that increased the energy absorption ∼15%.
Therefore, the hybrid structure E has great application potentials as a
protection structure. Structure B exhibited lower penetration resistances
than the structure containing monolithic ceramic tile, suggesting the
penetration resistances of ceramic prisms was significantly affected by
the constraints from the frame.
5. Conclusions
Four ceramic-metal hybrid structures with different frame structures
and ceramic inserts were designed and fabricated, and their ballistic re-
sponses to the penetration of a vertical projectile were experimentally
and numerically investigated to explore the influences of constraints on
the performance of ceramic-metal hybrid structures. The large ceramic
tiles in A and KJ effectively eroded the projectile, but the backplane
was easily deformed, causing the failure of the ceramic. The ceramics in
targets A and KJ were broken into large fragments upon the projectile
impacts, which caused relative lower energy absorptions of the ceramic.
The ceramic prisms in targets B and E target were confined by the frame,
and the ceramic prisms have to break into small debris, which absorbed
more energy. Despite their small sizes, the ceramic prisms were held by
the backplane and could erode the projectile effectively. The results in-
dicate that suitable boundary conditions and connection modes of the
substructures can provide relatively strong constraints to the ceramic in-
serts, leading to serious crushes of the ceramic inserts and more energy
dissipations of the projectile. Compared with the boundary condition,
the connection mode of substructures affected the penetration resistance
of the structure more significantly and could weaken the influences of
penetration position on the anti-penetration performance. The boundary
constraint and monolithic frame in target E. con increased the energy
absorption ∼35.7%, indicating that the constraint could potentially en-
hance the penetration resistance of the hybrid structure containing ce-
ramic prisms. However, the performance of structure A with a large size
monolithic ceramic tile was slightly affected by the boundary condi-
tion and connection mode of the substructures because the ceramic de-
bris formed under impacts could move around and thus the front plate
could not affect the deformation of the backplane in the target. These re-
sults indicate that the protection performance of a ceramic-metal hybrid
structure is strongly influenced by the size of ceramic insert, boundary
condition and connection mode of the substructures. The penetration
resistances of the best target (E.con target) among the four hybrid struc-
tures are ∼40% better than that of monolithic TC4 plate of equal areal
density, indicating that the hybrid structure with small ceramic prisms
and monolithic frame can provide higher penetration resistances than
the structure with large size ceramic tile, and ceramic hybrid structures
can be potentially used as a protective structure.
Acknowledgment
The authors are very grateful for the support received from the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11872121)
References
[1] Dinovitzer AS, Szymczak M, Etrickson D. Fragmentation of targets during ballistic
penetration events. Int J Impact Eng 1998;21(4):237–44.
90
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 159 (2019) 81–90
[2] Ni CY, Liu GW, Jin F, et al. Ballistic performance of titanium alloy encapsulated
ceramic composite plates. Mater Res Innovation 2015;18(sup2):S2215–19.
[3] Shokrieh MM, Javadpour GH. Penetration analysis of a projectile in ceramic com-
posite armor. Compos Struct 2008;82(2):269–76.
[4] Krishnan K, Sockalingam S, Bansal S, et al. Numerical simulation of ceramic com-
posite armor subjected to ballistic impact. Composites Part B 2010;41(8):583–93.
[5] Feli S, Asgari MR. Finite element simulation of ceramic/composite armor under bal-
listic impact. Composites Part B 2011;42(4):771–80.
[6] Jiang ZG, Zeng SY, Shen ZQ. Research progress on lightweight ceramic composite
armor structure. Acta Armamentarii 2010;31(5):603–10.
[7] Han B, Zhang ZJ, Zhang QC, et al. Recent advances in hybrid lattice-cored sand-
wiches for enhanced multifunctional performance. Extreme Mech Lett 2016;10.
[8] Allen HG. Analysis and design of structural sandwich panels. Oxford: Pergamon
Press; 1969.
[9] Gibson LJ, Ashby MF. Cellular solids, structure and properties. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press; 1997.
[10] Xue Zhenyu, Hutchinson John W. A comparative study of impulse-resistant metal
sandwich plates. Int J Impact Eng 2004;30:1283–305.
[11] Fleck NA, Deshpande VS. The resistance of clamped sandwich beams to shock load-
ing. J Appl Mech 2004;71:386–401.
[12] Yungwirth CJ, Radford DD, Aronson M, Wadley HNG. Experiment assessment of the
ballistic response of composite pyramidal lattice truss structures. Composites Part B
2008;39(3):556–69.
[13] Han B, Yan L, Yu B, Zhang Q, Chen C, Lu T. Collapse mechanisms of metallic sand-
wich structures with aluminum foam-filled corrugated cores. J Mech Mater Struct
2014;9(4):397–425.
[14] Yan LL, Yu B, Han B, Chen CQ, Zhang QC, Lu TJ. Compressive strength and energy
absorption of sandwich panels with aluminum foam-filled corrugated cores. Compos
Sci Technol 2013;86(7):142–8.
[15] Xia H, Hou R, Zhang Q, Lu T. Ballistic resistance of metal corrugated sandwich plates
filled with high performance concrete. J Chin Ceram Soc 2014;42(8).
[16] Ni CY, Hou R, Xia HY, et al. Perforation resistance of corrugated metallic sand-
wich plates filled with reactive powder concrete: experiment and simulation. Com-
pos Struct 2015;127:426–35.
[17] O’Masta MR, Compton BG, Gamble EA, Zok FW, Deshpande VS, Wadley HNG. Bal-
listic impact response of an UHMWPE fiber reinforced laminate encasing of an alu-
minum-alumina hybrid panel. Int J Impact Eng 2015;86:131–44.
[18] Ni CY, Li YC, Xin FX, Jin F, Lu TJ. Ballistic resistance of hybrid-cored sandwich
plates: numerical and experimental assessment. Composites Part A 2013;46:69–79.
[19] Wadley HNG, O’Masta MR, Dharmasena KP, Compton BG, Gamble EA, Zok FW.
Effect of core topology on projectile penetration in hybrid aluminum/alumina sand-
wich structures. Int J Impact Eng 2013;62:99–113.
[20] Yungwirth CJ, O’Connor J, Zakraysek A, Deshpande VS, Wadley HNG. Explorations
of hybrid sandwich panel concepts for projectile impact mitigation. J Am Ceram Soc
2011;94:s62–75.
[21] Ni C, Hou R, Han B, Jin F, Ma G, Lu T. Normal and oblique projectile impact of
double-layered pyramidal lattice truss structures filled with ceramic insertions. J
Thermoplast Compos Mater 2015;30(8):1136–56.
[22] An X, Yang J, Tian C, et al. Penetration resistance of hybrid metallic honeycomb
structures with ceramic insertions against long-rod tungsten projectiles. Compos
Struct 2018;189.
[23] Yungwirth CJ, wadley HNG, O’connor JH, et al. Impact response of sandwich plates
with a pyramidal lattice core. Int J Impact Eng 2008;35(8):920–36.
[24] Yungwirth CJ, Radford DD, Aronson M, et al. Experiment of the ballistic response of
composite pyramidal lattice truss structures. Composites Part B 2008;39(3):556–69.
[25] Wadley HNG, Dhamasena KP, O’Mastra MR, et al. Impact response of aluminum
corrugated core sandwich panels. Int J Impact Eng 2013;62(24):114–28.
[26] Tian Chao, An Xuanyi, Sun Qitian, Dong Yongxiang. Experimental and numerical
analyses of the penetration resistance of ceramic-metal hybrid structures. Compos
Struct 2018.
[27] Lurie S A, Solyaev YO, Koshurina AA, et al. Design of the corrugated core sandwich
panel with external active coating system. Compos Struct 2018;188:278–86.
[28] Börvik Tore, Clausen AH, Eriksson M, et al. Experimental and numerical study on
the perforation of AA6005-T6 panels[J]. Int J Impact Eng 2005;32(1):35–64.
[29] Guo X, Sun X, Tian X, et al. Simulation of ballistic performance of a two-layered
structure of nanostructured metal and ceramic. Compos Struct 2016;157:163–73.
[30] Lee WS, Lin CF. Plastic deformation and fracture behaviour of Ti–6Al–4 V al-
loy loaded with high strain rate under various temperatures. Mater Sci Eng A
1998;241(1–2):48–59.
[31] Leseur D. Experimental investigations of material models for Ti-6A1-4 V and
2024-T3. Off Sci Tech Inf Tech Rep 1999.
[32] Seo SW, Min OK, Yang HM. Constitutive equation for Ti-6Al-4 V at high temperatures
measured using the SHPB technique. Int J Impact Eng 2005;31(6):735–54.