Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026
Design and development of ceramic/metal/UHMWPE hybrid ballistic panels for ground combat vehicle applications: Experimental testing and numerical modeling
Metallic panels are often used for vehicle protection, designed to withstand a range of projectiles, from light firearms to armor-piercing (AP) rounds. However, these panels significantly increase the vehicle’s weight, potentially degrading performance and payload capacity. The armored vehicle market demands lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles. This study focuses on optimizing a reference ballistic steel panel (RBP) by integrating ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) and boron carbide (B4C) ceramics to meet STANAG 4569 Level 3 standards while reducing areal density (AD) for ground combat vehicle (GCV) applications. Material characterization was performed on reference materials using a universal testing machine (UTM) and a Split-Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) with 3D digital image correlation (DIC) to evaluate performance at different temperatures, strain rates, and failure modes under varying stress triaxiality. The identified material parameters were used to develop finite element (FE) models, which were validated and then employed to optimize several panel designs. Three promising configurations identified through FE modeling include (i) BP1 - (BS600/BS550/UHMWPE), (ii) BP2 - (B4C/BS600/BS550), and (iii) BP3 - (B4C/BS600/BS550/UHMWPE). These configurations were manufactured and tested against AP rounds using a gas gun projectile launcher. As a result, two panels were developed with reduced areal densities, 26% and 37% lighter than the reference ballistic steel panels, while maintaining superior ballistic protection. The single-hit impact test data from this study will aid in the design and manufacture of a lightweight, highly protected GCV.
AcarDCanpolatBHCoraON (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2024.101653
AndersonDButcherCPathakN, et al. (2017) Failure parameter identification and validation for a dual-phase 780 steel sheet. International Journal of Solids and Structures124: c9–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2017.06.018
AzizARAl AbdouliHKakurN, et al. (2025) The effects of high strain-rate and temperature on tensile properties of UHMWPE composite laminates. Composites Part C: Open Access16: 100549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomc.2024.100549
6.
BaoYWierzbickiT (2004) On fracture locus in the equivalent strain and stress triaxiality space. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences46(1): 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2004.02.006
7.
BenzergaAALeblondJ-B (2010) Ductile fracture by void growth to coalescence. Advances in Applied Mechanics44: 169–305.
8.
BurianWŻochowskiPGmitrzukM, et al. (2019) Protection effectiveness of perforated plates made of high strength steel. International Journal of Impact Engineering126: 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2018.12.006
9.
CadoniEFontanaMForniD, et al. (2018) High strain rates testing and constitutive modeling of B500B reinforcing steel at elevated temperatures. The European Physical Journal Special Topics227(1-2): 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2018-00046-4
10.
DreschABPizzattoFOVenturiniJ, et al. (2024) Mosaic ballistic ceramics: a review. Journal of Alloys and Compounds Communications3: 100012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacomc.2024.100012
11.
EriceBGálvezFCendónDA, et al. (2012) Flow and fracture behaviour of FV535 steel at different triaxialities, strain rates and temperatures. Engineering Fracture Mechanics79: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2011.08.023
12.
GhisiNBRamosHKindleysideL, et al. (2022) The influence of the characteristic microstructure of additively manufactured AlSi10Mg on the plastic behaviour at various strain rates. Materials & Design223: 111112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.111112
13.
GiurgiuTVircaIGrigoraşC, et al. (2023) Trends in development of military vehicles capabilities based on advanced technologies. International conference KNOWLEDGE-BASED ORGANIZATION29(3): 15–22. https://doi.org/10.2478/kbo-2023-0070
14.
HarrisAVaughanBYeomansJ, et al. (2017) Ballistic testing of surface‐treated alumina and silicon carbide with improved adhesive bond strength. International Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology14(3): 323–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijac.12668
JoshiAMishraASaxenaVK (2024) Impact response and energy absorption mechanisms of UHMWPE fabric and composites in ballistic applications: a comprehensive review. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing185: 108314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2024.108314
17.
KariemMASantiagoRCGovenderR, et al. (2019) Round-robin test of split Hopkinson pressure bar. International Journal of Impact Engineering126: 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2018.12.003
18.
KhanMKIqbalMABratovV, et al. (2020) An investigation of the ballistic performance of independent ceramic target. Thin-Walled Structures154: 106784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2020.106784
19.
KılıçNEkiciB (2013) Ballistic resistance of high hardness armor steels against 7.62 mm armor piercing ammunition. Materials & Design44: 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.07.045
LiWJingY (2022) A simple calibrated ductile fracture model and its application in failure analysis of steel connections. Buildings12(9): 1358. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12091358
22.
LiGFYangLXuH, et al. (2020) A study of the ballistic protection mechanism of two kinds of structure against 7.62×54 mm ball ammunition. The 2020 Spring International Conference on Defence Technology, Journal of Physics: Conference Series1507: 032025. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1507/3/032025
23.
LiMWangXLiuH, et al. (2025) MultiObjective optimization of the design of a protective components to chassis protection module for unmanned armored vehicles. Scientific Reports15(1): 6975. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-91632-6
24.
MarpaungMAritonangS (2023) Concept of the defense material system for the security of Indonesian national armed personnel against threats. Defense and Security Studies4: 15–22. https://doi.org/10.37868/dss.v4.id224
25.
MukaseyMBSedgwickJLHagyDW (2008) Ballistic resistance of body armor, NIJ standard-0101.06. US Department of Justice (www ojp usdoj gov/nij)38: 1–74.
26.
OrlovMYOrlovaYNFazylovTV (2023) 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/09544062231212028
27.
OzerMBalıkoğluFYılmazçobanİK (2025) Ballistic performance of armox500T and hardox450 double-layered steel plates under 7.62×51 mm FMJ bullet impact. International Journal of Protective Structures. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/20414196251391439
28.
PaiAKiniCRBSS (2022) Development of materials and structures for shielding applications against blast and ballistic impact: a detailed review. Thin-Walled Structures179: 109664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2022.109664
29.
RamosHSantiagoRSoeS, et al. (2022) Response of gyroid lattice structures to impact loads. International Journal of Impact Engineering164: 104202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.104202
30.
RanaweeraPBambachMRWeerasingheD, et al. (2023) Ballistic impact response of monolithic steel and tri-metallic steel–titanium–aluminium armour to nonrigid NATO FMJ M80 projectiles. Thin-Walled Structures182: 110200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2022.110200
31.
RenJXuYZhaoX, et al. (2018) Dynamic mechanical behaviors and failure thresholds of ultra-high strength low-alloy steel under strain rate 0.001/s to 106/s. Materials Science and Engineering: A719: 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2018.02.019
32.
RickheyFHongS (2022) Stress triaxiality in anisotropic metal sheets-definition and experimental acquisition for numerical damage prediction. Materials (Basel)15(11): 3738. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15113738
33.
RyanSLiHEdgertonM, et al. (2016) The ballistic performance of an ultra-high hardness armour steel: an experimental investigation. International Journal of Impact Engineering94: 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.03.011
34.
SartorTSilvaJVLGuanZ, et al. (2022) Influence of stress triaxiality on the fracture behaviour of Ti6Al4V alloy manufactured by electron beam melting. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures19(8): e469. https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-78257293
35.
SilvaMVStainerDAl-QureshiHA, et al. (2014) Alumina-based ceramics for armor application: mechanical characterization and ballistic testing. Journal of Ceramics2014: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/618154
36.
SinghBBSukumarGPamanA, et al. (2021) A comparative study on the ballistic performance and failure mechanisms of high-nitrogen steel and RHA steel against tungsten heavy alloy penetrators. Journal of Dynamic Behavior of Materials7(1): 60–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40870-020-00270-8
37.
StrasburgerE (2009) Ballistic testing of transparent armour ceramics. Journal of the European Ceramic Society29(2): 267–273.
TsirogiannisECDaskalakisEHassanMH, et al. (2024) Ballistic design and testing of a composite armour reinforced by CNTs suitable for armoured vehicles. Defence Technology32: 173–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2023.04.013
42.
TsirogiannisECDaskalakisEVogiatzisC, et al. (2024) Advanced composite armor protection systems for military vehicles: design methodology, ballistic testing, and comparison. Composites Science and Technology251: 110486.
43.
VilišJKosiuczenkoKNowakowskiM, et al. (2025) Comprehensive evaluation of layered composite protection performance for light armored vehicles. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance34: 23.
