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.

[1]  M. Rodríguez-Millán,et 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 , 2014 .

[2]  A. Arias,et al.  Numerical simulations of impact behaviour of thin steel plates subjected to cylindrical, conical and hemispherical non-deformable projectiles , 2008 .

[3]  Clay Naito,et al.  An experimental investigation of the effect of nose shape on fragments penetrating GFRP , 2014 .

[4]  Xuemei Wang,et al.  Validation of Johnson-Cook plasticity and damage model using impact experiment , 2013 .

[5]  Murat Buyuk,et al.  Explicit Finite Element Analysis of 2024-T3/T351 Aluminum Material under Impact Loading for Airplane Engine Containment and Fragment Shielding , 2008 .

[6]  A. Rusinek,et al.  A numerical analysis of the dynamic behaviour of sheet steel perforated by a conical projectile under ballistic conditions , 2013 .

[7]  Vincent B. C. Tan,et al.  Perforation of high-strength fabric by projectiles of different geometry , 2003 .

[8]  Chad A. Ulven,et al.  Effect of projectile shape during ballistic perforation of VARTM carbon/epoxy composite panels , 2003 .

[9]  Steve Evans,et 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 , 2008 .

[10]  Odd Sture Hopperstad,et al.  Quasi-brittle fracture during structural impact of AA7075-T651 aluminium plates , 2010 .

[11]  G. S. Sekhon,et al.  Effect of projectile nose shape, impact velocity and target thickness on the deformation behavior of layered plates , 2008 .

[12]  Francisco Gálvez,et al.  An experimental and numerical study of ductile failure under quasi-static and impact loadings of Inconel 718 nickel-base superalloy , 2014 .

[13]  G. S. Sekhon,et al.  Effect of projectile nose shape, impact velocity and target thickness on deformation behavior of aluminum plates , 2007 .

[14]  T. Børvik,et al.  Perforation resistance of five different high-strength steel plates subjected to small-arms projectiles , 2009 .

[15]  A. Rusinek,et al.  Influence of conical projectile diameter on perpendicular impact of thin steel plate , 2008 .