PSI - Issue 52

Huadong Xu et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 52 (2024) 52–62 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

57

6

Fig. 3(a) is the witness plate with impact crater damage in ceramic fabric (Nextel) target after HVI. The microscopic morphology of impact crater on witness plate was obtained by microscope scanning, as shown in Fig. 3(b). The red dotted line is the lip profile of impact crater. The 3D shape image of the impact crater is shown in Fig. 3(c), and the lip and bottom profile can be clearly seen. The volume and depth of the impact crater are 7.35 mm³ and 716 mm, respectively, as shown in Fig. 3(d) and Fig. 3(e). In turn, the specific absorbed energy S can be calculated by Eq. (1) and Eq. (3). 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Experimental results and damage analysis All the experimental results are summarized in Table 2, which includes target information and recorded measurements. Table 2. Impact experimental results. Experimental Bumper Material (km/s) Penetration R (%) (mm) (mm ³ ) Rank S1 UHMWPE 4.250 No 22.86 0 0 1 S2 Aramid 4.252 No 16.07 0 0 2 S3 Quartz fiber 4.195 Yes 0 123 0.38 3 S4 Basalt fiber 4.190 Yes 0 511 5.19 4 S5 Nextel fiber 4.20 Yes 0 716 7.35 5 S6 Al mesh 4.167 Yes 0 1091 6.12 6 S7 Carbon fiber 4.209 Yes 0 1055 9.6 7 S8 5A06 Al 4.266 Yes 0 1311 71.76 8 Note: is the initial velocity of projectiles; is Maximum depth of impact crater; is total of impact crater volume; R is the residual mass percentage of targets. Although impact conditions and areal density were kept constant for all targets, the results are considerably different. Fig. 4 show the targets and witness plates of each shielding configuration after the impact. Each figure shows an area of approximately 12 × 12 cm 2 .