A Study On The Ballistic Damage Tolerance Design of Aircraft Structures
A Study On The Ballistic Damage Tolerance Design of Aircraft Structures
A Study On The Ballistic Damage Tolerance Design of Aircraft Structures
85-90
FEBRUARY 2011 / 85
DOI: 10.1007/s12541-011-0010-2
A damage reference database from armor piercing bullet hits was established for tube and plate specimens with
different thicknesses. The penetration damage diameters of the tube specimens showed larger at the center than the
periphery in the front, but they resulted larger at the periphery than the center in the rear. As the angle of attack of
the plate specimens increased, the penetration damage diameters increased as well, with the penetration damage
diameters becoming larger in the rear than the front. Using the damage reference database, the fatigue analysis was
performed to determine whether the safety requirements for the military aircraft could be met.
Manuscript received: April 19, 2010 / Accepted: October 24, 2010
NOMENCLATURE
d = diameter of tube specimen
t = thickness of tube and plate specimen
= angle of attack to live rounds test
D = penetration damage diameter
TD = total damage
ni = number of cycles at the i th stress level
Ni = number of cycles to failure corresponding at the i th stress level
L = safety life
eq = equivalent stress
N = number of cycles
S= stress
1. Introduction
In military aircrafts, the ballistic damage tolerance design
against the bullet hit is very important as it is related with its
survivability. However, in most countries having advanced aircraft
technology, such information keeps being undisclosed. Therefore,
extensive studies are required on this area when developing a new
military aircraft. Hence, in terms of survivability for aircraft
structure, it is necessary to examine the enemy threats and assess
the vulnerable points to such threats based on the past combat
experiences.1-3 Following such assessments, analysis need to be
KSPE and Springer 2011
2. Experimental Method
2.1 Specimens and Fixtures
Tube and plate configurations of test specimens are shown in
Fig. 1. To establish statistically, the specimens penetration damage
diameter, live rounds tests were repeated numerous times. Table 1
86 / FEBRUARY 2011
(a) Tube
(b) Plate
(a) 0
(b) 30
(c) 60
FEBRUARY 2011 / 87
periphery than the center in the rear. Also, the penetration damage
diameters at the rear of tube specimens showed a tendency to
increase in the thickness of 3.5 mm compared to the thickness of
2.7 mm. These phenomena are seen in case of spaced armor where
ballistic testing is carried out on two plates with some distance kept
between them.10 The first plate attempts to resist and break the
bullet. In doing so the path of the projectile is changing. So instead
of hitting the second plate at 0 angle of attack, the projectile hits at
some angle. This angle of attack increases the damage area at the
back plate. Therefore, the cylindrical hollow tube has an equivalent
effect as seen in the spaced armor. And irregular edge effect caused
large standard deviation at the periphery in the front. However,
spaced armor effect was not presented at the stainless steel having
relatively high strength property. From Table 3, maximum
penetration damage diameters of the Al alloy tubes of 2.7 mm and
3.5 mm thick are respectively 21.9 mm and 25.7 mm while that of
the stainless steel tube of 4.0 mm thick is 14.8 mm.
Fig. 8 shows the front and rear photographs of the plate
specimens after live rounds tests. At 0 angle of attack, the
penetration limit was approximately 25.4 mm (1.0 inch) to the Al
alloy plate while it was approximately 12.7 mm (0.5 inch) to the
stainless steel plate because the bullets got stuck in the mentioned
thickness of both plates. Therefore, the bullets were either
penetrated or stuck up to the thickness of 25.4 mm of the Al alloy
plate as well as the thickness of 12.7 mm of the stainless steel plate.
But at more than 30 angle of attack, the bullets were just bounced
off the same thickness plate specimen surface.
Center
Front
Periphery
Center
Rear
Periphery
Al alloy
d : 39mm
t : 3.5mm
Stainless steel
d : 50mm
t : 4.0mm
Fig. 6 Photographs showing the front and rear sides of tube
specimens after live rounds tests (0 angle of attack)
2.7
Center 17.7
Periphery 15.5
0.9
8.5
20.9
21.9
4.2
2.3
18
6
3.5
Center 18.8
Periphery 16.8
1.3
5.4
22.6
25.7
4.1
3.0
16
4
4.0
Center 14.8
Periphery 13.9
1.8
3.8
14.3
15.1
0.7
0.7
3
3
Front
t : 12.7mm t : 25.4mm
Rear
t : 12.7mm T : 25.4mm
Al alloy
Stainless
steel
Fig. 8 Photographs showing the front and rear side of plate
specimens (0 angle of attack)
88 / FEBRUARY 2011
Fig. 10 shows the general flow chart for the ballistic damage
tolerance design. For the aircraft safety critical structures, the
configurations and materials vulnerable to bullet hit need to be
selected. Thereafter, through the live rounds tests, damage reference
database is constructed for use in determining the damage shape
and size, and completing the ballistic damage tolerance sizing by
iteration of analysis up to the certain level satisfying the specific
requirements. In this study, damage reference database for
application of design was obtained through 3. Test Results and
Discussions.
Such ballistic damage tolerance design application will be
performed to the aircraft structures whose safety is threatened under
the fire of heavy machine gun from the enemy. One example would
be the engine support structure shown in Fig. 11.
Thickness,
t (mm)
3.2
Al
alloy
12.7
25.4
Stainless
steel
12.7
Rear (mm)
Number
of
Standard
Ave.
deviation testing
13.8
1.0
5
19.0
1.0
5
30.9
1.4
5
13.4
1.5
5
14.1
4.8
5
5
2
2
2
15.6
0.7
2
2
2
FEBRUARY 2011 / 89
(1)
1
Required Life Time
TD
(2)
For the engine support structure, the mean S-N curve, and the
working S-N curve that takes in consideration the safety factor are
shown in Fig. 14. Generally, the working S-N curve for predicting
the aircraft structures fatigue expectancy considers the number of
testing and reliability level to apply the reduction factors that falls
approximately ~ of mean S-N curve.13,14 The signs in Fig.
14 show the equivalent stresses, the results of fatigue analysis of
engine support structure with ballistic damage. Because the
equivalent stresses under the design load spectrums were very low,
the safety life expectancy was evaluated to meet the required level.
From such fatigue analysis results, the safety of the military aircraft
structure having ballistic damage was verified, and these results
were applied to ballistic damage tolerance design.
90 / FEBRUARY 2011
5. Conclusion
To establish the damage design concept of the military aircraft,
study of the damage shape by armor piercing bullet was performed
and its design application was examined. The summary of findings
is as follows:
1) The penetration damage diameters of the tube specimens
showed larger at the center than the periphery in the front, but
they resulted larger at the periphery than the center in the rear.
2) The maximum penetration damage diameters of the Al alloy
tubes of 2.7 mm and 3.5 mm thick are respectively 21.9 mm
and 25.7 mm, and that of stainless steel tube of 4.0mm thick is
14.8 mm.
3) As the angle of attack of the plate specimens increased, the
penetration damage diameters increased as well, with the
penetration damage diameters becoming larger in the rear than
the front.
4) The maximum penetration damage diameters of the Al alloy
plates of 3.2 mm, 12.7 mm and 25.4 mm thick are respectively
37.8 mm, 47.0 mm and 65.4 mm, and that of stainless steel
plate of 12.7mm thick is 15.6 mm.
5) The damage reference database was constructed through the
live rounds tests in this study, and its fatigue analysis results
could make it possible to verify whether the military aircraft
met the specific required level of survivability.
REFERENCES
1. John, G. E., Design Manual for Impact Damage Tolerant
Aircraft Structure, AGARD-AG-238-ADD, 1981.
2. Jensen, J. E., The Ballistic Damage Characteristics and
Damage Tolerance of Wing Structural Elements, Damage
Tolerance in Aircraft Structures, ASTM, pp. 215-229, 1971.
3. Donald, F. H., Damage Tolerance of Semi-monocoque Aircraft:
Specialists Meeting on Impact Damage Tolerance of
Structures, AGARD, 1976.
4. Anderson Jr., C. E., Hohler, V., Walker, J. D. and Stilp, A. J.,
The influence of projectile hardness on ballistic performance,
International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp.
619-632, 1999.
5. Gupta, N. K. and Madhu, V., An experimental study of normal
and oblique impact of hard-core projectile on single and layered
plates, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 19,
No. 5-6, pp. 395-414, 1997.
6. Gupta, N. K. and Madhu, V., Normal and oblique impact of a
kinetic energy projectile on mild steel plates, International
Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 333-343,
1992.
7. U.S. Department of Defense, Military Handbooks:
Survivability, Aircraft, Nonnuclear, General Criteria - Vol. 1,
MIL-HDBK-336-1, 1982.