See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/256809421

Variability in Ballistic Impact Performance Due to Projectile Physical Properties

and Dimensions

Conference Paper · January 2008

CITATION READS

1 1,184

1 author:

Philip Cunniff
Materials Research Authority
42 PUBLICATIONS   1,720 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

No-name View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Philip Cunniff on 31 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 VARIABILITY IN BALLISTIC IMPACT PERFORMANCE DUE TO
PROJECTILE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND DIMENSIONS

Philip M. Cunniff

U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center Natick, MA
01760

The V50 ballistic impact performance of an armor system is related to the material properties
and construction details of the armor system and to test conditions including projectile
properties. Measured properties and dimensions (including hardness, mass and physical
dimensions) of a large data set of right circular cylindrical steel projectiles, collected from
several ballistic impact test facilities, were used to estimate variations in V50 ballistic limit
performance.

Physical dimensions, mass and hardness of a set of projectiles that are expected to
appreciably reduce measured V50 velocity variability and measured residual velocity
variability are described. The projectiles are intended to reduce variability in ballistic
impact test results compared to data collected using legacy projectiles. They are intended to
maintain mean values for ballistic limit and residual velocity compared to those data,
thereby allowing legacy data to be used to good affect in the future.

Introduction
The U.S. Army has had considerable interest in the assessment of the ballistic impact response of
fragmentation protective personnel armor materials for nearly a century [1-7]; measurement
techniques to assess performance have evolved over that time. By the 1940's the use of V50
ballistic limits against fragment simulating projectiles had supplanted prior resistance to
penetration testing against .45 caliber pistol bullets at reduced impact velocity for helmet
acceptance.

According to Mascianica [6] "It has also been found, to the great confusion of testing
facilities, that the caliber .45 ball, M1811, ammunition (used during World War I for testing body
armor materials) [was] far from being sufficiently uniform in production manufacture and
ballistic performance to be satisfactory for use in ballistic testing and evaluation; although the
lack of uniformity did not affect its suitability for combat use."

Mascianica attributed the confusion to variations in the properties of ball ammunition.

Apparently, some of the .45 ball ammunition used in the tests included projectiles that had copper-
clad steel-jacketed lead-core bullets; others included only copper-jacketed lead-core bullets. The
steel jacketed bullets were more effective penetrators, resulting in up to a 250 ft/s difference in
penetration velocity. The Ordnance Corps eventually discontinued the use of .45 ammunition for
use in evaluating armor materials because it does not represent the type of battlefield missiles
expected in modern warfare.

Watertown Arsenal Laboratories developed a series of fragment simulating projectiles

which consists essentially of blunt cylinders, some of which had chisel-shaped noses and raised
flanges at their bases to act as gas-seals and rotating bands. These missiles were specified to be
hardened to Rockwell C hardness of 28-32. This hardness level was selected after determining
that this represents the average hardness range of recovered fragments of detonated fragmenting
munitions

Those projectiles, described in part in MIL-P-46593A [8] allow for up to a +/- 0.002"
diameter tolerance. Remarkably, the NATO standard for ballistic test methods for personnel armor
and clothing STANAG 2920 [9] defines the geometry of cylindrical projectiles as tabulated in
Table 1 below.
Table 1: STANAG 2920 Projectile Dimensions
Mass Mass Diameter Diameter
Maximum Minimum
Tolerance Tolerance
Ap/mp Ap/mp
(g) (+/- g) (mm) (+/- mm)
4.15 0.03 8.74 0.03 59 57
2.83 0.03 7.49 0.04 64 61
1.10 0.03 5.39 0.06 87 79
0.49 0.03 4.06 0.14 120 93
0.33 0.03 3.60 0.19 150 101
0.24 0.03 3.25 0.22 180 107
0.16 0.03 2.64 0.27 205 93

Mascianica reported large zones of mixed results as part of an early helmet study using
actual munition fragments and fragment simulating projectiles. Zones of mixed results of over
300 ft/s were reported for fragment simulators, representing up to 22% of the measured V50 for
the armor systems under impact by 5.85-grain fragment simulating projectiles.

The measured zone of mixed results for actual munition fragments in this mass-class was
even larger; zone of mixed results of over 700 ft/s or 36% of the measured V50 were reported,
with average zone of mixed results of 16% of measured V50 for these low-mass fragments.

The zone of mixed results for 17- and 44- grain fragment simulators and for actual
fragments in these mass-classes were lower than the lower mass fragments. The zone of mixed
results for 17 grain fragments was approximately 9% of the measured V50, on average, and the
zone of mixed results for 44 grain fragment was approximately 7% of the measured V50, on
average for the data presented in the report.

Such large variability in the response of the armor system may be partly attributable to
variations in the projectiles used in those studies. In the case of actual munition fragments, it's
difficult to control the striking attitude of the projectiles, and hence difficult to control (even
difficult to ascertain) the effective presented area of the projectiles. In the case of fragment
simulating projectiles, the allowable dimensional tolerance of the projectiles may have
contributed to the variability in the armor system response. Mascianica described only the
nominal dimensions of the projectiles used in the studies. MIL-P-46593A [8] describes allowable
dimensional tolerances for 17-grain fragments, among other fragments. The specification for
nominal 0.22-inch diameter 17-grain fragment simulators includes a +/-0.002-inch tolerance on
length, a +/-0.002-inch tolerance on diameter, and a +/- 0.5-grain tolerance on mass. Based solely
on those dimensions, up to a 9% variation in mass per unit presented area could accrue.

Armor Performance Variability

The variability in V50 performance is due to variability in testing conditions, lot to lot
variability in armor material mechanical properties, variability within a lot in armor material
mechanical properties, and variability in armor system construction. The variability in testing
conditions is due to such factors as differences in projectile mass and diameter within the
tolerance allowed for the projectiles, and differences in striking attitude of the projectiles (e.g.
yaw). This variability can be large.

Figure 1 contains plots of the V50 performance of Kevlar 29 composites and Kevlar 29
helmets tested against right circular cylindrical projectiles. The helmet data of Figure 1 represents
data collected from helmets at 5.5, 6.1, 9.2 and 11.6 kg/m2 areal density impacted by 2, 4, 16, and
64 grain steel right circular cylindrical projectiles. The flat panel data of Figure 1 represents data
collected from flat panels at 3.1, 4.1, 6.1 8.1, 9.1, 11.6 and 12.2 kg/m2 areal density impacted by
2, 4, 16, and 64 grain steel and tungsten right circular cylindrical projectiles. V50 Data for the
Kevlar 29 PASGT helmet are contained in the plot for helmets. In Figure 1, the V50 performance
is approximated with a regression fit to the data. The regression curve is seen to fit the data in an
average sense for each of the projectiles of interest to armor system developers. In prior work, for
the determination of V50 velocity, the dimensionless parameter AdAp/mp is used with striking
obliquity T as the principal dependent variables. as indicated in Equation 1; this regression curve
was used in this work.

A X7
X 6 § A d -----p-·
 sec T – 1  © m p¹ (1)
V 50 = X8 X5 e

where V50 V50 Ballistic Limit (m/s) T Projectile Impact Obliquity

2
Ap Presented area of the projectile (m ) Xi Regression constants
mp Mass of the projectile (kg) Ad System Areal Density (kg/m2)

As indicated in Equation 1 and in Figure 1, V50 is proportionate to the dimensionless ratio

of target areal density to projectile areal density (Ad Ap / mp) . Clearly, control over variability in
projectile diameter and mass are important to control over variability in ballistic limit.
 Figure 1. V50 Performance of 1500 denier 2X2 Basket Weave Kevlar 29 Polyvinylbutyral-
Phenolic Helmets and Flat Panels at Various Areal Densities

The projectiles used for V50 ballistic testing in this work were selected to reproduce the
performance of fragmenting munitions; right circular cylinders with a length to diameter ratio of
approximately 1.0 were used. The requirement for tolerance on the mass and diameter of these
projectiles is tabulated in Table 1 below. It is noted that it may not possible to have a projectile at
the minimum (or maximum) acceptable diameter and also at the maximum (or minimum)
acceptable projectile mass, since these projectiles may be out of tolerance in the length
dimension.
Table 2: Historical Right Circular Cylindera Dimensions
Weight (Grains) Outside Diameterb (OD) Lengthc (L)
(inches) (inches)
2 ± 0.10 0.111 ± 0.001 0.111 ± 0.0015
4 ± 0.15 0.134 ± 0.001 0.147 ± 0.001
16 ± 0.5 0.219 ± 0.001 0.221 ± 0.001
64 ± 1.0 0.344 ± 0.001 0.355 ± 0.001
a. Material is 01 Tool Steel (Oil Hardened Drill Rod) heat treated to Rockwell “C” hardness of 29 ± 2.
b. O.D. is nominal diameter of drill rod as furnished.
c. Adjust Length (L), within allowable tolerances, to meet the indicated weight (grains)

Measurement of Projectile Dimensions

This work was intended to help ascertain the source of some of the observed variability in
ballistic limit data as well as to form a basis for specifying a set of projectiles that may be more
appropriate to use for evaluation of personnel armor. The source of variability is more
appropriately addressed by inspection of a set of projectiles in actual use, rather than from an
analysis of the required geometry and hardness of the projectiles.
 Projectile diameter, length and weight was recorded for 100 each 2-, 4-, 16-, and 64-grain
projectiles obtained from three testing sources (one commercial laboratory and two Army
laboratories). Projectile length and diameter were measured to the nearest .00005" using a Starret
Model 733 electronic micrometer. Projectiles were weighed to the nearest 0.1 mg using a
Sartorius model 1801 microbalance. Three measurements of diameter were averaged for the
diameter measurement. Results are presented below for measured mass per unit presented area
for each of the 1200 projectiles measured. As illustrated in the Figure, presented area per unit
mass varies by as much as about 10% for 2-grain projectiles, and by as little as about 2% for 64-
grain projectiles.

0.036
0.050

0.048

0.035
Source 1
Source 1
Source 2
0.046 Source 2
Source 3
Source 3

0.044 0.034

0.0237
Prtesented Area per Unit Mass (m /kg)
Prtesented Area per Unit Mass (m /kg)

0.0236 0.0145
2
2

0.0235

0.0234

0.0233
0.0144
0.0232

0.0231

0.0230

0.0229 Source 1 0.0143 Source 1

ARLSource
SLAD 2 ARL SLAD
0.0228
ATC
Source 2
ATC
0.0227
H.P.Source
W hite 3 H.P.Source
W hite3
0.0226 MSA MSA
0.0225 0.0142

64 Area
Figure 2. Measured Projectile Mass per Unit Presented P 2j/kg)
G i (m il

As a measure of the expected variability in ballistic impact performance using these

projectiles, the V50 ballistic limit was estimated using equation 1 for Kevlar 29 polyvinyl butyral
/ phenolic helmets at the areal density of the PASGT helmet (38 oz/yd2). Results are presented in
Figure 3 below for each of the 1200 projectiles measured. As illustrated in the Figure, V50 is
expected to varry by as much as about 10% for 2-grain projectiles, and by as little as about 1% for
64-grain projectiles against this armor system.
 4700 3300

4600

3250
4500

4400
3200
4300

Source 1
4200 Source 1
3150 Source 2
Source 2
Source 3
4100 Source 3

2350 1790
Source 1
Source 1
Source 2
2340 Source 2
Source 3
Source 3
2330
1780
2320

2310

2300 1770

2290

2280
1760

Figure 3. Expected V50 Velocities for Various Projectile Geometries using Equation 1

Hardness Testing

Hardness was measured using the Rockwell Superficial Hardness 30N-Scale for a subset
of the projectiles; at least 50 hardness measurements were made for each projectile type. Results
of the testing were converted to Rockwell C equivalent, and are plotted in Figure 4.

As indicated in Figure 4, many of the projectiles measured were not within the prescribed
hardness range (Rc 27-31). The effect of those variations in hardness on measured ballistic limit
is expected to be greatest at higher velocities and against composite (or metal) targets, where
appreciable projectile deformation is observed
 Source 1 Transverse Source 1 Longitudinal
2-grain 16-grain
Source 1 Longitudinal Source 2 Transverse

35 Source 2 Transverse Source 2 Longitudinal

Source 3 Transverse
Source 2 Longitudinal 35
Source 3 Longitudinal
30
Rockwell C Equivalent

Rockwell C Equivalent
30

25

25
20

20
15

15
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Sample Sample

Source 1 Transverse Source 1 Longitudinal

4-grain 64-grain
Source 1 Longitudinal Source 2 Transverse
34 Source 2 Longitudinal
Source 2 Transverse
35 Source 3 Transverse
32 Source 2 Longitudinal
Source 3 Longitudinal

30
Rockwell C Equivalent 30
Rockwell C Equivalent

28

25
26

24
20

22

15
20

18
10
0 5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25
Sample
Sample

Figure 4. Measured Projectile Hardness

Discussion
Some of the variability in projectile dimensions and in projectile hardness may be masked
in the methodology used to measure the V50 ballistic limit, as discussed by Cunniff [9]. That is,
Figure 3 is a plot of the estimated V50 velocity expected if a set of consistent projectiles were
used. to obtain the V50 velocity. In practice, projectiles would likely be drawn randomly from a
larger population of projectiles; this would be expected to reduce the total variability estimated in
Figure 3. Nonetheless, variability associated with lower mass projectiles measured here is
considered large.

Equation 1 and Figure 1 do not account for uncontrolled hardness. That is, Equation 1 is
simply a curve-fit to the data of Figure 1; the equation does not include hardness as an
independent variable.

References
1. Sullivan, J. F. Resistance of Regulation 'Flak-Jacket' to Perforation by Fragment-Simulating
Projectiles. WATERTOWN ARSENAL LABS MA Defense Technical Information Service
Report No. ADA954361 01 JUL 1944
 2. Sullivan, J. F. Resistance of Various Fabrics to Perforation by Fragment-Simulating Projectiles
WATERTOWN ARSENAL LABS MA Defense Technical Information Service Report No.
ADA954839 18 JUN 1945
3. Sullivan, J. F. Resistance of Unsized 19-Ounce Nylon Duck to Perforation by Fragment-
Simulating Projectiles WATERTOWN ARSENAL LABS MA Defense Technical Information
Service Report No. ADA954330 29 AUG 1944
4. Sullivan, J. F. Resistance of Various Samples of Fiberglass to Perforation by Fragment-
Simulating Projectiles. WATERTOWN ARSENAL LABS MA Defense Technical
Information Service Report No. ADA954280 10 JUN 1944
5. Sullivan, J. F. Resistance of Various Numbers of Plies of .020 Aluminum Alloy Sheets to
Perforation by Fragment-Simulating Projectiles. WATERTOWN ARSENAL LABS MA
Defense Technical Information Service Report No. ADA954324 29 AUG 1944
6. MASCIANICA, F S., PERSONNEL ARMOR. BALLISTIC EVALUATION OF M1 AND
EXPERIMENTAL EX-51-1 HELMETS WATERTOWN ARSENAL LABS MA
AD0022392 August 21, 1953
7. MASCIANICA, F S., BALLISTIC EVALUATION OF EXPERIMENTAL NYLON HELMET
LINERS, T54-1 WITH AND WITHOUT M1 STEEL HELMET SHELLS WATERTOWN
ARSENAL LABS MA AD0050874 October 01, 1954
6. BALLISTIC TEST METHOD FOR PERSONAL ARMOUR MATERIALS AND COMBAT
CLOTHING NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO)
STANDARDIZATION AGREEMENT STANAG 2920 (Edition 2) Promulgated on 31 July
2003
7. MASCIANICA, F S., EFFECT OF METHOD OF SUPPORT UPON BALLISTIC
PERFORMANCE OF FLEXIBLE PERSONNEL ARMOR WATERTOWN ARSENAL
LABS MASS AD0083841 January 03, 1956
8. MIL-P-46593A, Projectile, Calibers .22, .30, .50 and 20MM Fragment Simulating, Oct. 1964.
9. Cunniff P.M. Assessment of the Ballistic Impact Performance of Variable Response Armor
Systems 24’th Int. Symp. on Ballistics, 2008

View publication stats