A study of the effect of projectile orientation on the results of ballistic impact tests as described in the EASA CS-25 regulations for fuel tank access covers
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2017
A study of the effect of projectile orientation on the results of ballistic impact tests as described in the EASA CS-25 regulations for fuel tank access covers
This paper presents the results of an investigation of the ballistic limits and failure modes of AA2024-T351 sheets impacted with cubical projectiles. The experiment/test setup was based on EASA CS-25 regulations for fuel tank access covers. The effect of cube orientation on the ballistic limit and failure modes was considered in detail. A 25% variation in ballistic limit was observed with the lowest ballistic limit (202 m/s) observed for the cubical projectile edge impacted on the target. In the cube face impacts, the ballistic limit was higher (223 m/s), and the highest ballistic limit (254 m/s) was observed for the corner impact. The observed differences in the ballistic limit were due to differences in failure mechanism, which resulted in different localised deformations near the projectile impact point, but also led to differences in global dishing deformation.
GuptaNKIqbalMASekhonGS. Effect of projectile nose shape, impact velocity and target thickness on the deformation behavior of layered plates. Int J Impact Eng2008; 35: 37–60.
2.
GuptaNKIqbalMASekhonGS. Effect of projectile nose shape, impact velocity and target thickness on deformation behavior of aluminum plates. Int J Solids Struct2007; 44: 3411–3439.
3.
AriasARodríguez-MartínezJARusinekA. Numerical simulations of impact behaviour of thin steel plates subjected to cylindrical, conical and hemispherical non-deformable projectiles. Eng Fract Mech2008; 75: 1635–1656.
4.
JankowiakTRusinekAWoodP. A numerical analysis of the dynamic behaviour of sheet steel perforated by a conical projectile under ballistic conditions. Finite Elem Anal Des2013; 65: 39–49.
5.
RusinekARodríguez-MartínezJAAriasAet al.Influence of conical projectile diameter on perpendicular impact of thin steel plate. Eng Fract Mech2008; 75: 2946–2967.
6.
Rodríguez-MillánMVaz-RomeroARusinekAet al.Experimental study on the perforation process of 5754-H111 and 6082-T6 aluminium plates subjected to normal impact by conical, hemispherical and blunt projectiles. Exp Mech2014; 54: 729–742.
7.
BørvikTHopperstadOSPedersenKO. Quasi-brittle fracture during structural impact of AA7075-T651 aluminium plates. Int J Impact Eng2010; 37: 537–551.
8.
EriceBPérez-MartínMJGálvezF. An experimental and numerical study of ductile failure under quasi-static and impact loadings of Inconel 718 nickel-base superalloy. Int J Impact Eng2014; 69: 11–24.
9.
JordanJBNaitoCJ. An experimental investigation of the effect of nose shape on fragments penetrating GFRP. Int J Impact Eng2014; 63: 63–71.
10.
UlvenCVaidyaUKHosurMV. Effect of projectile shape during ballistic perforation of VARTM carbon/epoxy composite panels. Compos Struct2003; 61(1–2): 143–150.
11.
TanVBCLimCTCheongCH. Perforation of high-strength fabric by projectiles of different geometry. Int J Impact Eng2003; 28: 207–222.
12.
WangJZhouN. Damage mechanism and anti-penetration performance of explosively welded plates impacted by projectiles with different shapes. Mater Des2013; 49: 966–973.
13.
WangXShiJ. Validation of Johnson–Cook plasticity and damage model using impact experiment. Int J Impact Eng2013; 60: 67–75.
14.
Buyuk M, Loikkanen M and Kan CD. Explicit finite element analysis of 2024-T3/T351 aluminum material under impact loading for airplane engine containment and fragment shielding. Report for the US Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration. Report no. DOT/FAA/AR-08/36, September 2008. Washington DC: FAA.
15.
Kelly S and Johnson G. Statistical testing of aircraft materials for transport airplane rotor burst fragment shielding. Report for the US Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration. Report no. DOT/FAA/AR-06/9, May 2006. Washington DC: FAA.
16.
Kay G, Goto D and Couch R. Statistical testing and material model characterisation of aluminum and titanium for transport airplane rotor burst fragment shielding. Report for US Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration. Report no. DOT/FAA/AR-07/26, August 2007. Washington DC: FAA.
17.
Ryabov AA, Romanov VI, Kukanov SS, et al. Numerical simulation of elastic-plastic deformation of aircraft fuel tank access cover impacted by tyre fragment. In: 9th european LS-DYNA conference, Manchester, UK, 2–4 June 2013.
18.
WilliamsenJESchonbergWPEvansHet al.A comparison of NASA, DoD, and hydrocode ballistic limit predictions for spherical and non-spherical shapes versus dual- and single-wall targets, and their effects on orbital debris penetration risk. Int J Impact Eng2008; 35: 1870–1877.
19.
European Aviation Safety Agency. Certification specifications for large aeroplanes. Report for the European Aviation Safety Agency. Report no. CS-25, Amendment 3, 19 September 2007. Cologne: EASA.
20.
BørvikTDeySClausenAH. Perforation resistance of five different high-strength steel plates subjected to small-arms projectiles. Int J Impact Eng2009; 36: 948–964.
