ARL-RP-0634 ● SEP 2018

US Army Research Laboratory

A Potential Methodology for Evaluating 

Ceramic Quality

by Matthew S Burkins, Donald J Little, and Melissa S Love

Reprinted from Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on Ballistics;

2017 Sep 11–15; Long Beach, CA.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
NOTICES

Disclaimers

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the 

Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official 

endorsement or approval of the use thereof.

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator.
ARL-RP-0634 ● SEP 2018

US Army Research Laboratory

A Potential Methodology for Evaluating 

Ceramic Quality

by Matthew S Burkins, Donald J Little, and Melissa S Love

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL

Reprinted from proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on Ballistics 2017; 

2017 Sep 11–15; Long Beach, CA.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
ii

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently 

valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

September 2018

2. REPORT TYPE

Reprint

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

October 2016–September 2017

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

A Potential Methodology for Evaluating Ceramic Quality

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Matthew S Burkins, Donald J Little, and Melissa S Love

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

US Army Research Laboratory

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate (ATTN: RDRL-WMP-E)

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

ARL-RP-0634

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Reprinted from Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on Ballistics 2017; 2017 Sep 11–15; Long Beach, CA.

14. ABSTRACT

Metal armor alloys have well-established, stand-alone, ballistic acceptance criteria to demonstrate consistent lot-to-lot 

performance, thus allowing metals to be qualified prior to cutting and forming into the final armor design. By contrast, 

ceramics do not have stand-alone quality assurance criteria. ARL undertook a small-scale effort to evaluate an energy-based 

assessment methodology for bare ceramics developed by TNO in the Netherlands. Bare sintered aluminum oxide tiles and 

hot-pressed silicon carbide tiles were evaluated using the energy methodology. While this method may have promise, a 

number of issues must be overcome before this method can be adopted to determine ceramic quality.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

ceramic, aluminum oxide, silicon carbide, .30 caliber APM2, .30 caliber brass projectile

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

17. LIMITATION

 OF

 ABSTRACT

UU

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

17

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Melissa S Love

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

410-278-8672

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
30TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON BALLISTICS 

LONG BEACH, CA, SEPTEMBER 11–15, 2017

A POTENTIAL METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING 

CERAMIC QUALITY

Matthew S. Burkins, Donald J. Little and Melissa S. Love

U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066, U.S.A.

Metal armor alloys have well-established, stand-alone, ballistic acceptance criteria to 

demonstrate consistent lot-to-lot performance, thus allowing metals to be qualified prior to 

cutting and forming into the final armor design. By contrast, ceramics do not have standalone quality assurance criteria. ARL undertook a small-scale effort to evaluate an energybased assessment methodology for bare ceramics developed by TNO in the Netherlands. 

Bare sintered aluminum oxide tiles and hot-pressed silicon carbide tiles were evaluated 

using the energy methodology. While this method may have promise, a number of issues 

must be overcome before this method can be adopted to determine ceramic quality.

INTRODUCTION

Metal armor alloys have well-established, stand-alone, ballistic acceptance criteria 

to demonstrate consistent lot-to-lot performance, thus allowing metals to be qualified 

prior to cutting and forming into the final armor design. By contrast, ceramics do not 

have stand-alone quality assurance criteria. Ceramic materials must be bonded to a 

backing material in any practical armor design. When these engineered ceramic targets 

do not meet performance expectations, the assembly time is lost in addition to the raw 

materials. Also, fully engineered and assembled targets often do not provide a clear 

indication of whether the ceramic, the bond, or the backer is at fault for the limited 

performance. 

Figure 1. Experimental setup for Energy Method evaluation of bare ceramics at TNO. 

Erik Carton and Geert Roebroeks at TNO in the Netherlands have pioneered an 

energy-based assessment methodology for bare ceramics [1]. Their experimental setup 

is shown in Figure 1. A projectile is fired into a bare ceramic tile and the residual 

bullet fragments are captured. The velocity of the projectile is measured prior to 

impact while high speed video provides the velocity of the residual fragments. 

2490
Residual mass is determined by measuring the fragments recovered from the catcher. 

The projectile striking energy (ES) is then compared to the residual energy (ER) using 

energy loss (E loss) as calculated from Equation 1. ES should be determined just prior 

to the projectile striking the tile, and ER is the residual energy of the projectile upon 

exiting the tile. 

E loss = ES − ER

ES

 (1) 

ARL conducted a small-scale investigation of this energy methodology to evaluate 

bare ceramic tiles. Bare sintered aluminum oxide tiles and hot-pressed silicon carbide 

tiles were evaluated under different conditions as part of this work. Since no 

international standard exists for this experimental methodology, the initial focus was 

on factors that affect the consistency of experimental results: type of projectile, 

method of measurement, method of fragment capture, ceramic thickness variability, 

etc. While the method may have promise, a number of issues must be overcome 

before this method can be adopted to regulate ceramic quality. 

RESULTS – PHASE 1 

 

The ARL experimental setup is shown in Figure 2. CoorsTek AD995 aluminum 

oxide ceramic tiles [2] from a single lot were used for all experiments. The front of a 

90mm x 90mm AD995 ceramic tile was placed against two support bars in order to 

assure the tile was at zero degrees obliquity with respect to the shot line. As can be 

seen in Figure 2, the back surface of the tile is completely unrestrained. Projectile 

striking velocity, vertical pitch, and horizontal yaw were measured via 2 pairs of 150 

keV orthogonal flash x-rays [3]. A break screen was used to start the video camera, 

which captured images of debris behind the tile. A second break screen, placed 

305mm behind the tile, was used to initiate 2 channels of 150 keV flash x-rays, 

permitting observation of the higher density bullet debris that could not be seen within 

the ceramic debris cloud shown on video. A catcher was placed behind the target (not 

shown in Figure 2) to capture the bullet debris that exited the ceramic tile. The 

composition of this catcher was varied using different proportions of plywood and 

celotex. Celotex was better at catching small fragments but was easily perforated by 

the larger fragments. Plywood was better at catching larger fragments but the smaller 

fragments often failed to penetrate the surface. 

The 7.62mm APM2, Figure 3, was selected as the experimental penetrator to 

match TNO’s prior work. This projectile has a hardened steel core within a gilding 

metal jacket. While the nominal muzzle velocity of this projectile is 841 m/s, 

experiments were conducted at 830 m/s ± 10 m/s to match the prior work at TNO. 

Two thicknesses of AD995, 7.62mm and 8.13mm, were tested and the ballistic results 

are provided in Table I. The AD995 ceramic thickness was measured at the center of 

the tile where the projectile would impact. Total yaw is the vector sum of measured 

vertical pitch and horizontal yaw. Residual Mass, Residual Velocity, Residual Energy, 

and Energy Loss in black text indicate the velocity and the bullet condition (combined 

core and jacket) were obtained using x-rays. The red text indicates that the energy 

calculation was performed using the mass for the steel core (excluding jacket) and the 

video velocity. 

2491
Figure 2. Experimental setup for bare ceramic evaluation at ARL. 

Figure 3. Cutaway of 7.62mm APM2 projectile. 

2492
TABLE I. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FOR 0.30 CALIBER APM2 VS. BARE AD995. 

AD995 

Tile

Thickness

(mm)

Projectile

Mass

(g)

Projectile 

Striking 

Velocity 

(m/s)

Total

Yaw

(deg)

Projectile

Striking

Energy 

[ES]

(kJ)

Residual

Mass

(g)

Residual

Velocity

(m/s)

Residual

Energy

[ER]

(kJ)

Energy

Loss

(%)

8.077 10.627 827 0.04 3.63

6.830 585 1.17 68

Core & jacket / velocity from x-rays

4.186 616 0.79 78

Core only / velocity from video

8.052 10.638 834 0.53 3.70

6.201 608 1.15 69

Core & jacket / velocity from x-rays

3.545 619 0.68 82

Core only / velocity from video

7.569 10.627 834 0.33 3.70

7.264 633 1.46 61

Core & jacket / velocity from x-rays

4.238 614 0.80 78

Core only / velocity from video

7.645 10.677 835 0.44 3.72

5.359 618 1.02 73

Core & jacket / velocity from x-rays

2.903 647 0.61 84

Core only / velocity from video

While two thicknesses of AD995 were tested to look at variability as a function of 

tile thickness, only the results for the two nominal 8mm thick tiles are plotted in 

Figure 4 because this thickness matched the TNO work. The TNO data using 

aluminum oxide [1] are reproduced in blue as a function of lateral tile size. The TNO 

data were subjected to a second order fit shown by the blue curve. Since TNO had not 

evaluated 90x90mm tiles, the ARL data had to be compared to the curve rather than to 

actual data points. Note the scatter of E loss, calculated using equation 1, in the TNO 

data. The red squares show the ARL data using the mass of the core only and the 

velocity obtained by video. This matches the conditions that TNO used for calculating 

energy loss. The black triangles show the same two experiments using the combined 

recovered mass of core and jacket, as well as the velocity obtained from the x-rays. 

TNO assumed that the projectile jacket is stripped from the core during the dwell 

phase and that the velocity of the debris cloud is the same as the velocity of the 

residual projectile [1]. The assumption that the jacket is removed from the steel core 

during penetration did not match the experimental results at ARL, as shown in Figure 

5, where the steel core has part of the jacket attached. Whether to include the jacket in 

the residual energy calculations is a fundamental issue that needs to be resolved. On 

the other hand, the assumption that the video velocity of the cloud is the same as the 

velocity of the residual projectile appears to be valid. Figure 5 shows one of the more 

extreme cases where x-ray and video velocities differed by nearly 30m/s; however, for 

other experiments, the difference was less between the two methods. 

2493
Figure 4. Plot of energy loss as a function of 8mm-thick aluminum oxide lateral tile size. 

Figure 5. Comparison of views behind the tile with x-ray on left and video on right. 

RESULTS – PHASE 2 

 

The Phase 1 experiments revealed a number of challenges with the initial 

implementation of the bare ceramic testing. At both TNO and ARL, the residual 

energy and E loss values show quite a bit of scatter with the 7.62mm APM2 projectile. 

The brittleness of the core probably contributes to this problem, in addition to the 

jacket issues discussed previously. Furthermore, catching the bullet fragments in the 

celotex/plywood packs proved less than satisfactory. This leads to adopting a water 

catch tank for the projectile debris, which would allow easy collection of the projectile 

without causing further damage. Another change was to examine the use of a solid, 

ductile metal projectile that would avoid the issues with the jacket and the brittle core 

of the 7.62mm APM2. 

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105

AD995 Burkins (video)

AD995 Burkins (x-rays)

y = -0.00288x

2

+0.590x

1

+45.1, r

2

=0.547

Carton & Roebroeks

Tile Size (mm)

E loss (%)

VR = 585 m/s

X-Ray Video

VR = 616 m/s

2494
The setup for Phase 2 is shown in Figure 6. The same batch of CoorsTek AD995 

90mm x 90mm tiles was used for Phases 1 and 2. Break screens were again used to 

initiate video and x-rays. The distance was 445mm from the front of the tile to the 

steel deflector plate that protects the catch tank, shown bottom left. The location of the 

lights and video camera are also shown. The bare back surface of the tile is visible. 

For Phase 2, a monolithic projectile entirely composed of a ductile metal was 

adopted. The resulting 7.62mm brass projectile, manufactured from C464 Naval 

Brass, is shown in Figure 7, along with the alloy composition. The projectile was 

manufactured to match the outer jacket profile of the APM2. The nominal 11.0 g mass 

of the brass projectile was higher than the APM2 due to higher density of the brass 

alloy compared to steel. The nominal impact velocity for the brass projectiles was 850 

m/s. The brass alloy did not experience brittle failure and was easy to launch from a 

rifle. Experimental results are provided in Table II. Residual Velocity, Residual 

Energy, and Energy Loss were based on the x-ray measurements when the typeface is 

black. The red typeface indicates the Residual Velocity, Residual Energy, and Energy 

Loss were based on video measurements. For the nominal 7.62mm thick tiles, the 

energy loss varied from 70-76% over seven shots using only the x-rays for measuring 

velocity. The nominal 8.13mm tiles showed an energy loss of 77-78% using x-rays, 

but this seemingly smaller spread may be due to having fewer shots. Overall, there do 

not appear to be enough data to make hard conclusions about energy loss variability as 

a function of tile thickness. 

Figure 6. Experimental setup for Phase 2.

2495
Figure 7. Sketch of 7.62mm brass projectile. 

TABLE II. RESULTS FOR THE 7.62MM BRASS PROJECTILE VS. BARE AD995. 

Measured

AD995 

Tile

Thickness

(mm)

Projectile

Mass

(g)

Projectile 

Striking 

Velocity 

(m/s)

Total

Yaw

(deg)

Projectile

Striking

Energy 

[ES]

(kJ)

Residual

Mass

(g)

Residual

Velocity

[X-Ray

Video]

(m/s)

Residual

Energy

[ER]

(kJ)

Energy

Loss

(%)

7.645 10.919 843 0.70 3.88 5.443 634 1.09 72

7.696 10.893 852 0.51 3.95 4.990 643 1.03 74

7.645 10.906 854 0.48 3.98 5.035 643 1.04 74

7.722 10.885 852 0.42 3.95 4.819 632

604

0.96

0.88

76

78

7.569 11.123 836 0.42 3.89 5.146 643

612

1.06

0.96

73

75

7.620 11.121 847 0.12 3.99 5.761 649

611

1.21

1.08

70

73

7.569 11.129 843 0.07 3.95 5.446 644

635

1.13

1.10

71

72

8.128 10.893 856 1.28 3.99 4.867 608

611

0.90

0.91

77

77

8.204 10.893 859 0.32 4.02 4.384 633

603

0.88

0.80

78

80

8.204 10.897 866 1.69 4.09 4.892 616

625

0.93

0.96

77

77

Some additional experiments were performed using bare 90mm x 90mm x 

7.62mm and 90mm x 90mm x 8.13mm thick hot-pressed silicon carbide (SiC) tiles 

produced by CoorsTek. SiC was chosen since it is a well characterized armor ceramic 

and should provide a different ballistic performance than AD995. The density of the 

SiC was approximately 3.24 g/cm3 compared to approximately 3.9 g/cm3 for the 

AD995; therefore, the areal density of bare SiC tiles was about 16% less than AD995. 

Once again, the nominal impact velocity for the brass projectiles was 850 m/s. The 

ballistic results for the SiC tiles are provided in Table III where red typeface indicates 

the Residual Velocity, Residual Energy, and Energy Loss were based on video 

2496
measurements rather than x-rays. Using only the x-ray velocity data, the thinner tiles 

showed an energy loss of 71-74% while the thicker tiles showed an energy loss of 73-

80%. While this seems to be a reversal of the AD995 results, the number of shots is 

too few to draw any hard conclusions about energy loss variability with tile thickness. 

At this point, all of the brass and steel core bullet data could be used to compare 

the residual velocities obtained by x-ray and from the high speed video. As can be 

seen in Figure 8, the ceramic debris cloud velocity as measured by video is within 5% 

of the residual projectile velocity obtained from x-rays in most cases. 

TABLE III. RESULTS FOR THE 7.62MM BRASS PROJECTILE VS. BARE SILICON CARBIDE. 

Measured

SiC

Thickness

(mm)

Projectile

Mass

(g)

Projectile 

Striking 

Velocity 

(m/s)

Total

Yaw

(deg)

Projectile

Striking

Energy 

[ES]

(kJ)

Residual

Mass

(g)

Residual

Velocity

[X-Ray

Video]

(m/s)

Residual

Energy

[ER]

(kJ)

Energy

Loss

(%)

7.671 11.128 833 0.47 3.86 5.170 663

667

1.14

1.15

71

70

7.696 11.122 854 0.38 4.06 4.668 677

621

1.07

0.90

74

78

7.671 11.122 853 0.47 4.05 4.875 683

682

1.14

1.13

72

72

8.230 10.888 865 0.94 4.07 4.226 653

622

0.90

0.82

78

80

8.230 10.888 860 1.23 4.03 4.701 651

620

1.00

0.90

75

78

8.230 10.902 860 1.20 4.03 5.141 670

653

1.15

1.10

71

73

Figure 8. Comparison of residual velocity as measured using x-rays and high speed video. 

550

600

650

700

750

550 600 650 700 750

AD995 vs 7.62mm APM2

AD995 vs 7.62mm Brass

SiC vs 7.62mm Brass

Projectile Residual Velocity by X-Ray (m/s)

Cloud Residual Velocity by Video (m/s)

± 5%

2497
SIMULATIONS 

The simplicity of both the brass projectile and the bare ceramic tile provided an 

opportunity to evaluate and compare the experimental results to ballistic simulations. 

The goal was to see if the bare ceramic methodology would be helpful in checking the 

input parameters used in the simulations. The simulations presented here were 

conducted using EPIC2016 [4], a Lagrangian hydrocode with penetration applications. 

The brass projectile was constructed and meshed in CUBIT [5] using the median 

dimensions from Figure 7 and the cartridge brass material available in the EPIC 

library. Ballistic experiments were conducted with the brass projectile impacting semiinfinite rolled homogenous armor (RHA) steel [6] and 5083 alloy aluminum [7]. 

These ballistic results were compared to simulation results and show similar 

penetration and residual penetrator shapes, though details are omitted here due to 

space constraints. 

Figure 9 shows a comparison of the simulation and experimental results for the 

7.62mm bare AD995 tile. The simulation was conducted using the nominal projectile 

velocity of 850m/s and is shown on top with blue text. The experimental results are 

provided below with black text. The x-ray images are provided, as well as an inset 

image of the projectile recovered from the water tank. Note that the residual penetrator 

is close to the leading edge of the debris cloud in the simulation, supporting the 

previous assumption that the two have the same velocity. The residual penetrator nose 

is similarly mushroomed in both experiment and simulation. The simulation energy 

loss is 6% higher than the specific experimental matched case. 

Figure 10 shows a comparison of the simulation and experimental results for the 

8.13mm bare AD995 tile. The simulation was again conducted using the nominal 

projectile velocity of 850m/s and is shown on top with blue text. The experimental 

results are provided below with black text along with the x-ray images and an inset 

image of the projectile recovered from the water tank. Again, the residual penetrator is 

close to the leading edge of the debris cloud in the simulation, supporting the previous 

assumption that the two have the same velocity. The residual penetrator nose is 

similarly mushroomed in both experiment and simulation. The simulation energy loss 

is again 6% higher than the specific experimental matched case. 

Figure 11 provides a summary of the energy loss versus tile thickness for all of the 

experiments and the two simulations. The 7.62mm APM2, shown as black triangles, 

shows large variations in energy loss that led to the switch to a solid brass projectile. 

The bare ceramic experiments using the brass projectile appeared to provide similar 

energy loss results for SiC and AD995 tiles at equal thickness. This is disquieting 

because the two materials have different areal densities, very different costs, and 

historically exhibited different ballistic performances. While the simulations appeared 

to capture the experimental trend in this very limited set of cases, they over predicted

the energy loss by 6%. More analysis will be required to determine if this relatively 

small difference is because the cartridge brass material in the model is not 

representative of the naval brass penetrator material used in the experiments. 

2498
Figure 9. Comparison of simulation (top) and experiment (bottom) for bare 7.62mm thick AD995 tile. 

Figure 10. Comparison of simulation (top) and experiment (bottom) for bare 8.13mm thick AD995 tile. 

Residual mass = 6.24 g

Residual length = 9.4 mm

Residual velocity = 559 m/s

Residual KE = 0.974 kJ

Energy Lost = 76%

Initial mass = 11.34 g

Initial length = 35.1 mm

Initial velocity = 850 m/s

Initial KE = 4.096 kJ

Residual mass = 5.761 g

Residual length = 12.65 mm

Residual velocity = 649 m/s

Residual KE = 1.21 kJ

Energy Lost = 70%

Initial mass = 11.121 g

Initial length = 35.1 mm

Initial velocity = 847 m/s

Initial KE = 3.99 kJ

649 m/s

Initial mass = 11.34 g

Initial length = 35.1 mm

Initial velocity = 850 m/s

Initial KE = 4.096 kJ

Residual mass = 6.26 g

Residual length = 7.2 mm

Residual velocity = 475 m/s

Residual KE = 0.705 kJ

Energy Lost = 83%

608 m/s

Residual mass = 4.87 g

Residual length = 10.74 

Residual velocity = 608 m/s

Residual KE = 0.90 kJ

Energy Lost = 77%

Initial mass = 10.89 g

Initial length = 35.1 mm

Initial velocity = 856 

Initial KE = 3.99 kJ

2499
Figure 11. Comparison of energy lost in experiments and simulations. 

CONCLUSIONS 

 

The bare ceramic experiments with the 7.62mm APM2, both at TNO and ARL, 

showed large variations in the energy loss results. Switching to the solid brass 7.62mm 

projectiles greatly reduced the variation in energy loss results. The assumption that the 

velocity of the ceramic debris cloud is the same as the projectile velocity appears to be 

reasonably good based on simulations and experiments. The velocities of the cloud (as 

measured by high speed video) and the projectile (as measured with x-rays) were 

within 5% of each other in most cases. The water catch tank provided a more reliable 

method for catching the residual projectile than the celotex/plywood packs. The 

simulations appeared to capture the experimental trend in this very limited set of cases 

but the simulation energy loss was 6% higher than the experimental results. More 

analysis will be required to determine if this relatively small difference is because the 

penetrator material in the model is not representative of the penetrator material used in 

the experiments. The bare ceramic experiments using the brass projectile appeared to 

have difficulty differentiating between SiC and AD995 tiles at equal thickness. This 

apparent inability to clearly distinguish between SiC and AD995, two ceramic 

materials with very different areal densities, costs, and historical performance data, 

indicates that the bare ceramic energy methodology is not well suited to be used as a 

quality control measure for ceramics. 

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3

AD995 vs 7.62mm APM2 Experiment

AD995 vs 7.62mm APM2 Experiment

AD995 vs Brass Experiment

AD995 vs Brass Experiment

AD995 vs Brass Simulation

SiC vs Brass Experiment

SiC vs Brass Experiment

Tile Thickness (mm)

E loss (%)

2500
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

The simulation work was supported in part by a grant of computer time from the DOD 

High Performance Computing Modernization Program at the US Army Research 

Laboratory. 

REFERENCES 

1. Carton, Erik and Roebroeks, Geert. 2014. “Testing Method for Ceramic Armor and Bare Ceramic 

Tiles, Ballistics and Protection”, presented at the 38th International Conference on Advanced 

Ceramics and Composites, 27-31 January, 2014. 

2. CoorsTek. 2016. “Advanced Alumina” brochure, downloaded on June 1, 2017 from 

https://www.coorstek.com/english/solutions/materials/technical-ceramics/alumina/. 

3. Grabarek, C. and Herr, E. L. September 1966. “X-Ray Multi-Flash System for Measurement of 

Projectile Performance at the Target,” BRL-TN-1634, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 

4. Johnson, G. R.; Stryk, R. A.; Holmquist, T. J.; Beissel, S. R. June 1997. “Numerical Algorithms in 

a Lagrangian Hydrocode,” WL-TR-1997-7039, Wright Laboratory, Eglin AFB, FL. 

5. Sandia National Laboratories. 2015. “Cubit 15.0 user documentation”. 

6. MIL-DTL-12560K (MR). December 07, 2013. “Detail Specification - Armor Plate, Steel, Wrought, 

Homogeneous (For Use In Combat-Vehicles And For Ammunition Testing),” U.S. Army Research 

Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 

7. MIL-DTL-46027K (MR). July 31, 2005. “Detail Specification - Armor Plate, Aluminum Alloy, 

Weldable 5083, 5456, & 5059,” U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 

 

2501
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13

1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL

(PDF) INFORMATION CTR

DTIC OCA

2 DIR ARL

(PDF) IMAL HRA 

RECORDS MGMT

RDRL DCL

TECH LIB

1 GOVT PRINTG OFC

(PDF) A MALHOTRA

33 ARL

(PDF) RDRL WM

S SCHOENFELD

RDRL WML H

T EHLERS

L MAGNESS

RDRL WMM D

B CHEESEMAN

RDRL WMM F

K DOHERTY

RDRL WMP B

C HOPPEL

J MCDONALD

RDRL WMP C

R BECKER

D CASEM

A TONGE

S SATAPATHY

RDRL WMP D

R DONEY

M KEELE

D KLEPONIS

H MEYER

F MURPHY

C RANDOW

J RUNYEON

S SCHRAML

K STOFFEL

G VUNNI

RDRL WMP E

M BURKINS

D LITTLE

M LOVE

B AYDELOTTE

D GALLARDY

P GILLICH

D HORNBAKER

J HOUSKAMP

T JONES

E KLIER

D SHOWALTER

P SWOBODA