This work performed a nonlinear numerical analysis of Armox 500T and Hardox 450 armour steels, under ballistic conditions, validating the results via experimental data. The ballistic performance of seven distinct armour configurations were investigated, including monolithic, and double-layered armour steels. Ballistics tests were conducted using 7.62 full metal jacket bullets with a muzzle velocity of 837 ± 3.08 m/s, under the NIJ 0108.01 III protection level standard. Monolithic Armox 500T steel exhibited superiority over double-layer Armox 500T and Hardox 450 steels with regard to ballistic protection, weight, and cost-effectiveness. The fully perforated monolithic Armox 500T steel plate exhibited a reduced bullet exit velocity compared to Hardox 450 steel and produced a smaller exit hole for the bullet. Comprehensive finite element simulations of the ballistic impact events were conducted to elucidate the phenomena of defeat and penetration with greater precision.
AcarDCanpolatBHCoraÖN (2024) Ballistic performances of Ramor 500, Armox advance and Hardox 450 steels under monolithic, double-layered, and perforated conditions. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal51: 101653.
2.
Armox 500T General Product Description. (2016). SSAB.
3.
BaşaranGGürsesE (2017) Numerical study of high velocity impact response of vehicle armor combination using LS DYNA. In: 11th European LS-DYNA Conference, Salzburg, Austria, Copyright by DYNAmore GmbH.
4.
BekciMLCanpolatBHUstaE, et al. (2021) Ballistic performances of Ramor 500 and Ramor 550 armor steels at mono and bilayered plate configurations. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal24(4): 990–995.
5.
BørvikTHopperstadOSBerstadT, et al. (2002a) Perforation of 12mm thick steel plates by 20mm diameter projectiles with flat, hemispherical and conical noses. International Journal of Impact Engineering27(1): 37–64.
6.
BørvikTLangsethMHopperstadOS, et al. (2002b) Perforation of 12mm thick steel plates by 20mm diameter projectiles with flat, hemispherical and conical noses. International Journal of Impact Engineering27(1): 19–35.
7.
BørvikTHopperstadOSLangsethM, et al. (2003) Effect of target thickness in blunt projectile penetration of Weldox 460 E steel plates. International Journal of Impact Engineering28(4): 413–464.
8.
DekaLJBartusSDVaidyaUK (2008) Damage evolution and energy absorption of E-glass/polypropylene laminates subjected to ballistic impact. Journal of Materials Science43(13): 4399–4410.
9.
DengYYangBWeiG, et al. (2024) Ballistic performance of double-layered plates Q235 and 45 steel subjected to impact by projectiles of middle strength. Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures31(26): 8648–8661.
10.
HallquistJO (2006). LS-DYNA Theory Manual.
11.
İbışMÖKahramanYGenelK (2023) Effect of adhesive on ballistic performance of multi-layered steel. International Journal of Impact Engineering176: 104559.
12.
JohnsonGR (1983) A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Ballistics, Netherlands. pp. 541-547. The Hague.
13.
KasilingamSIqbalMASenthilR (2019) Influence of impactor nature, mass, size and shape on ballistic resistance of mild steel and Armox 500 T steel. International Journal of Protective Structures10(2): 174–197.
14.
MiloradovicNNestorovicKTrifkovicD, et al. (2025) Experimental and numerical examination of perforation of Armox 500t high hardness steel plate by projectiles of small arms ammunition.
15.
MorghodeDSThakurDGSalunkheS, et al. (2024a) Analysis of the thickness of layered armor to provide protection against 7.62 mm ball projectiles using experimental and numerical methods. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering10: 1419210.
16.
MorghodeDSThakurDGSalunkheS, et al. (2024b) Numerical study on the optimized thickness of layer configuration against the 7.62 APM2 projectile. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering10: 1322640.
17.
MubasharAUddinEAnwarS, et al. (2019) Ballistic response of 12.7 mm armour piercing projectile against perforated armour developed from structural steel. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications233(10): 1993–2005.
18.
MulabagalPKumaraswamyADewanganMK, et al. (2024) Comparative study of effect of fragment nose shapes on damage characteristics of thin target plate in ballistic applications. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science238(19): 9660–9671.
OrlovMYFazylovTV (2022) Research of the Behaviour of multi-layered Steel Targets Impacted by High-Velocity Projectiles. In: OrlovM.Y.VisakhP. M. (eds). Behavior of Materials under Impact, Explosion, High Pressures and Dynamic Strain Rates. Advanced Structured Materials. Switzerland: AG, Springer, 145–167.
21.
OrlovMYOrlovaYNFazylovTV (2024) Numerical simulation of behavior of multi-layered metal targets impacted by high-velocity striker. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science238(10): 4757–4767.
22.
PamanASukumarGRamakrishnaB, et al. (2020) An optimization scheme for a multilayer armour module against 7.62 mm armour piercing projectile. International Journal of Protective Structures11(2): 185–208.
23.
QiangLZhangRZhaoC, et al. (2022) Multiple ballistic impacts of thin metallic plates: numerical simulation. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science236(14): 7962–7973.
24.
RanaweeraPWeerasingheDFernandoP, et al. (2020) Ballistic performance of multi-metal systems. International Journal of Protective Structures11(3): 379–410.
25.
SalehM (2016) Analysis of the residual stress in ARMOX 500T armour steel and numerical study of the resultant ballistic performance. In: HoldenT. M.MuránskyO.EdwardsL. (eds). 10th International Conference on Residual Stresses. Sydney, Australia, 3-7 July 2016, USA: Materials Research Forum LLC Publishing, 437–442.
26.
SenthilKIqbalMA (2021) Prediction of superior target layer configuration of armour steel, mild steel and aluminium 7075-T651 alloy against 7.62 AP projectile. Structures29: 2106–2119.
27.
SenthilKIqbalMABhattacharjeeD, et al. (2015) Ballistic resistance of Armox 500T steel plates against 7.62 API projectiles. In: 3rd International Conference on Protective Structures, Callaghan, NSW, 2015, 3–6.
28.
ShowalterDD ,(2008) Ballistic testing of SSAB ultra-high-hardness steel for armor applications.
29.
SirigiriVKRGudigaVYGattuUS, et al. (2022) A review on Johnson cook material model. Materials Today: Proceedings62: 3450–3456.
30.
TengXWTWierzbickiTHuangM (2008) Ballistic resistance of double-layered armor plates. International Journal of Impact Engineering35: 870–884.
31.
UlewiczRMazurMBokůvkaO (2013) Structure and mechanical properties of fine-grained steels. Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering41(2): 111–115.
32.
YilmazcobanIKDonerS (2016) Ballistic protection evaluation of sequencing the composite material sandwich panels for the reliable combination of armor layers. Acta Physica Polonica A130(1): 342–346.
33.
YunfeiDWeiZYonggangY, et al. (2014) Experimental investigation on the ballistic performance of double-layered plates subjected to impact by projectile of high strength. International Journal of Impact Engineering70: 38–49.
