NationStates

HASF, which stands for Halsten Anilin und Soda Fabrik, is a specialist materials engineering and testing firm, and was founded by Yohannesian aerospace engineer Hilda von Braun on 7 May 1945 in Royal Alexandria. We abide by the rules and regulations of the World Assembly.


Portfolio

Here, we provide up-to-date summary of HASF products. As a family-owned business, we specialise in a few efficient production solutions, such as composite materials for the engines of satellites’ expendable launch systems, or ceramic composites for armoured vehicles.

• Armoured vehicles and tanks modular ceramic-metal armour [ Product ]
• Ceramic composite for satellite expendable launch system engines [ In development ]

Latest news

Here, you will also find the latest news about HASF. News style or news writing posts of our company will be tagged with “News Post” to avoid confusion with HASF products posts.

• Smart Aerospace Composites [ Forum ]

HASF GmbH & Co. KG • Opening post • 1

Out-of-Character disclaimer

This is a non-commercial fictional design on the website NationStates for Modern Tech (MT) countries.


Introduction

Armoured vehicles and main battle tanks have traditionally been manufactured from high strength armour or specially modified plate steel (Bisalloy Armour, 2016). However, advanced ceramic composites have largely replaced steel as non-structural armour materials in some modern combat vehicles (CeramTec GmbH, 2018). Their properties, such as good strength combined with high hardness, make their manipulation ideal for the design of modern armour systems (Bracamonte et al., 2016). But, in some designs this has been limited by their low brittleness and toughness (Bhatnagar & Asija, 2016). Therefore, for this design, ceramics have been joined with both metallic and long fibre reinforced composite backing plates to improve their ballistic performance (Simons et al., 2016).

For this design, limitation to depth of penetration (DOP) performance has been compared with similar schemes using ANSYS Autodyn: Equations of Motion three-dimensional analysis (ANSYS Simulation, 2018) and LS Dyna hydrocode simulation. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Standard 60^O oblique and normal testing parameters have been used. Technical data for the ceramic and metal composition have been acquired by using the Johnson-Cook and Johnson-Holmquist (JH-2) constitutive models (Johnson–Holmquist damage model).

With ongoing research and development, the combined design of ceramic and metal modules potentially allows armour system to face not just present impact velocities ranging from 1,500 to 1,800 metres per second, but also more lethal future impact velocities, which can range from 2,500 to 3,000 mps (Cottrell et al., 2003).


Background

Armour research and development for tanks since the Second World War has become increasingly focused on finding less heavier layered composites that offer better protection than basic steel plate (Browne, 1989). Although it has since the 1970s increasingly included multi-layer composite materials, ceramics and other ballistic protection materials, the standard structure of an armoured fighting vehicle is still made up of monolithic, armour-grade steel, which will still be used mainly for the next 30 years or so (Azom Materials, 2017). At the same time, there is continuing development in armour material design to improve ballistic properties while ensuring better mobility for military vehicles (ASM International, 2003). Many approaches to integrate ceramics in hybrid armour systems have produced weight reductions, and will continue to improve performance for next-generation energy absorbing systems for military vehicles (Craciun, 2009). One such approach was by restraining ceramic tiles with membranes of polymeric composites or metal sheets (Sarva et al., 2004).

The optimal design and implementation of energy-absorbing materials and structural systems require a fundamental understanding of dynamic events and failure mechanisms under extreme conditions (Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics, 2018). Since the 1970s, this understanding has allowed manufacturers to tailor their protective systems for reliable performance (Yap, 2012). One such advantage was demonstrated first on the Vickers-MBT armour system in 1976, which comprised compact arrays with laminated elements or spaced arrays, otherwise known as the “Chobham armour” (Browne, 1989). Although the composition is still secret, it is known to be partly laminated, partly spaced arrays with elements of aluminium, ceramics, and modified grade steel (Hilmes, 1987).

From previous developments we have learned that ceramics show high resistance under extreme compressive loading and break apart under tensile loading, which cannot be avoided in impact loading (Perciballi et al., 1992). Investigations were conducted to address this shortcoming, resulting in the development of a viable materials system to improve performance (Yang & Miyanaji, 2017).

For this design, the following symbols and definitions are used:

ε₀, reference strain rate; ρ₀, density (kg/m³); A', yield strength (MPa); B', constant hardening (MPa); C', constant strain rate; C_r, specific heat (J/kg x K); d'_1-5, constant damage; K, bulk modulus (MPa); K_2-3, constant pressure (MPa); G, shear modulus (MPa); n, hardening exponent; t₀, reference temperature (K); t_m, melting temperature (K); β, bulking factor; A & N, constant strength intact; B, constant fracture strength; M, fracture strength exponent; D_1-2, constant damage; T, hydrostatic tensile limit (MPa); d_ref, depth of penetration with no ceramic tile; d_res, residual penetration; η, mass efficiency protection coefficient; ρ_ref, referenced target density; ρ_c, ceramic tile density; L_r, residual length of projectile; t_c, ceramic tile thickness; t_f, front and cover plates thickness; t_b, rear plate thickness; and σ_m, mean stress

For this design, limitation to depth of penetration (DOP) performance has been compared with similar schemes using hydrocode Autodyn simulation: Equations of Motion three-dimensional analysis. DOP testing is used to record depth of penetration results and compare these values with values of penetration depth achieved without the armour system (Hazell, 2016).

Table 1 shows the material properties of the long rod penetrator used in the on the ground firing testing of the sample armour design.

Armour defeat concept:	Long rod
Penetrator	Tungsten W93% heavy alloy, FeNi iron–nickel alloy & Tungsten WHA heavy alloy
Density:	17,600 kg/m3
Modulus of elasticity	325,000 MPa
Ultimate tensile strength	920 MPa
Plastic deformation resistance	Brinell hardness 277 tungsten wolfram carbide

Table 2 shows the material properties of the ceramic used in the on the ground firing testing of the sample armour design.

Materials	Silicon carbide fibre reinforced and coatings SiC-F/T
Density	3,200-3,250 kg/m3
Modulus of elasticity	415,000 MPa
Ultimate tensile strength	400 MPa
Plastic deformation resistance	Vickers hardness 26,000 MPa

Table 3 shows the material properties of the minority axial confinement used in the on the ground firing testing of the sample armour design.

Minority materials	R56400 3.8 alpha-beta titanium alloy
Density	4,400-4,420 kg/m3
Modulus of elasticity	~114,000 MPa
Ultimate tensile strength	~1,100 MPa
Plastic deformation resistance	Brinell hardness 328 tungsten wolfram carbide

Table 4 shows the material properties of the majority axial confinement used in the on the ground firing testing of the sample armour design.

Majority materials	Maschinenfabrik Halsten AG rolled homogeneous armour plate grade steel
Density	7,790 kg/m3
Modulus of elasticity	~200,000 MPa
Ultimate tensile strength	≥ 1,180 MPa
Plastic deformation resistance	Brinell hardness 430 tungsten wolfram carbide

Table 5 shows the material properties of the side interface layering used in the on the ground firing testing of the sample armour design.

Side materials	Copper
Density	8,850 kg/m3
Modulus of elasticity	~110,000 MPa
Ultimate tensile strength	239 MPa
Plastic deformation resistance	Vickers pyramid 80

Table 6 shows the material properties of the weak interface layering used in the on the ground firing testing of the sample armour design.

Interface materials	Spark-machining graphite allotrope
Density	1,680 kg/m3
Modulus of elasticity	~10,000 MPa
Ultimate tensile strength	28 MPa
Plastic deformation resistance	Brinell hardness 530 tungsten wolfram carbide

Table 7 shows the material properties of the support plate used in the on the ground firing testing of the sample armour design.

Support materials	Maschinenfabrik Halsten AG rolled homogeneous armour plate grade steel
Density	7,790 kg/m3
Modulus of elasticity	~200,000 MPa
Ultimate tensile strength	≥ 1,180 MPa
Plastic deformation resistance	Brinell hardness 430 tungsten wolfram carbide

Table 8 shows the material properties of the peripheral covering used in the on the ground firing testing of the sample armour design.

Peripheral covering	Halstenmetall AG 4340 vacuum arc treated steel alloy
Density	7,790 kg/m3
Modulus of elasticity	~200,000 MPa
Ultimate tensile strength	890 MPa
Plastic deformation resistance	Brinell hardness 280 tungsten wolfram carbide

Figure 1 shows an edited mesh generated version of the three dimensional half and quarter armour sample models for impact under North Atlantic Treaty Organisation 60^O and normal arrangements that were built with hydrocode Autodyn modeling.


Figure 2 shows an edited primitive material version of the three dimensional half and quarter armour sample models for impact under North Atlantic Treaty Organisation 60^O and normal arrangements that were constructed with hydrocode Autodyn modeling.


The different goals of the fire testing were to judge prestress influence on the ceramic armour system, study the ability of the ceramic armour system to defeat the kinetic energy penetrator at the ceramic’s front surface, and identify each constituent of the sample armour design. The penetrator used to hit the sample armour design was a Tungsten W93% heavy alloy, FeNi iron–nickel alloy and Tungsten WHA heavy alloy long rod penetrator with a diameter of 8 millimetres and length of 113 mm having conical tip with an angle of 8 degrees, 1.4 mm diameter and 24 mm length.

To improve limit velocity (e.g. compression failure strength, ductility, premature tension failure) of the ceramic constituent, compressive prestressing was applied before testing (Lankford et al., 1995). Manually-operated linear actuators were used to do this prestressing of the square (equal 100 mm length and width) silicon carbide fibre reinforced and coatings SiC-F/T ceramic armour. The thickness chosen for the ceramic sample was 20 mm.

This ceramic layer was secured by limited aperture, spaced Halstenmetall AG 4340 vacuum arc treated steel alloy. Maschinenfabrik Halsten AG rolled homogeneous armour plate grade steel was chosen as the majority frame material to confine the configuration because they are easily available beyond the International Incidents (i.e. industrially viable). To strengthen this spaced configuration, R56400 3.8 alpha-beta titanium alloy was chosen as minority material, though only in weak areas because they are expensive and has small industrial availability (i.e. smaller supply), unlike the more widespread supply of RHA steel (Ward-Close, 1994).


Materials properties

Technical data for the penetrator and target metal composition have been acquired by using the Johnson-Cook and Johnson-Holmquist (JH-2) constitutive models (Johnson–Holmquist damage model).

Table 9 shows the constant parameters of the Tungsten W93% and WHA heavy materials of the penetrator.

Material:	Tungsten W93% and WHA
Density:	17,600 kg/m3
Grüneisen parameter:	1.537
Equation of state — Autodyn support	Shock was chosen
Bulk modulus	283,700 MPa
Reference temperature	26.85 OC; 300 Kelvin
First parameter	4,035 m/s
Second and third parameters	1.24 and 0
Specific heat	133.7 J/kg x K
Strength — Autodyn support	Johnson–Cook constants
Shear modulus	159,600 MPa
Yield strength	698 MPa
Constant hardening	1,150 MPa
Constant hardening exponent	0.624
Thermal exponent	1.009
Constant strain rate	0.055
Melting temperature	1,457 OC; 1,730 K
Reference strain rate	1.000
Failure — Autodyn support	Johnson–Cook equivalent plastic strain to failure
Constant damage values	0 → 0.31 → -1.47 → 0 → 0

Table 10 shows the constant parameters of the Halstenmetall AG 4340 vacuum arc treated steel materials of the peripheral armour covering.

Material:	Halstenmetall AG 4340 vacuum arc treated steel alloy
Density:	7,790 kg/m3
Grüneisen parameter:	—
Equation of state — Autodyn support	Linear was chosen
Bulk modulus	158,600 MPa
Reference temperature	26.85 OC; 300 Kelvin
Specific heat	476.3 J/kg x K
Strength — Autodyn support	Johnson–Cook constants
Shear modulus	76,800 MPa
Yield strength	781 MPa
Constant hardening	503 MPa
Constant hardening exponent	0.259
Thermal exponent	1.027
Constant strain rate	0.0137
Melting temperature	1,534 OC; 1,807 K
Reference strain rate	1.000
Failure — Autodyn support	Johnson–Cook equivalent plastic strain to failure
Constant damage values	0.06 → 3.231 → -2.077 → 0.002 → 0.603

Table 11 shows the constant parameters of the Maschinenfabrik Halsten AG rolled homogeneous armour plate grade steel materials of the majority axial confinement and support plate.

Material:	Maschinenfabrik Halsten AG rolled homogeneous armour plate grade steel
Density:	7,790 kg/m3
Grüneisen parameter:	—
Equation of state — Autodyn support	Linear was chosen
Bulk modulus	158,600 MPa
Reference temperature	26.85 OC; 300 Kelvin
Specific heat	476.3 J/kg x K
Strength — Autodyn support	Johnson–Cook constants
Shear modulus	77,900 MPa
Yield strength	1,450 MPa
Constant hardening	690 MPa
Constant hardening exponent	0.198
Thermal exponent	0.809
Constant strain rate	0.00537
Melting temperature	1,534 OC; 1,807 K
Reference strain rate	1.000
Failure — Autodyn support	Johnson–Cook equivalent plastic strain to failure
Constant damage values	0.06 → 3.231 → -2.077 → 0.002 → 0.603

Table 12 shows the constant parameters of the copper materials of the side interface layering.

Material:	Copper
Density:	8,850 kg/m3
Grüneisen parameter:	—
Equation of state — Autodyn support	Linear was chosen
Bulk modulus	128,600 MPa
Reference temperature	26.85 OC; 300 Kelvin
Specific heat	382.4 J/kg x K
Strength — Autodyn support	Johnson–Cook constants
Shear modulus	45,900 MPa
Yield strength	89 MPa
Constant hardening	288 MPa
Constant hardening exponent	0.308
Thermal exponent	1.087
Constant strain rate	0.0244
Melting temperature	1,087 OC; 1,361 K
Reference strain rate	1.000
Failure — Autodyn support	Johnson–Cook equivalent plastic strain to failure
Constant damage values	0.648 → 5.768 → -2.968 → 0.0138 → 1.104

Table 13 shows the constant parameters of the silicon carbide used for the ceramic armour design.

Materials:	Silicon carbide fibre reinforced and coatings SiC-F/T
Density:	3,200 kg/m3
Bulk modulus	218,560 MPa
Constant pressure values	0 & 0 MPa
Bulking factor	1
Shear modulus	184,930 MPa
Hugoniot elastic limit	14,720 MPa
Constant strength intact	0.958 & 0.648
Constant damage values	0.486 & 0.486
Constant fracture strength	0.343
Exponent fracture strength	1
Constant strain rate	0.00441
Hydrostatic tensile limit	-0.741

Table 14 shows the constant parameters of the R56400 3.8 alpha-beta titanium alloy materials of the minority axial confinement.

Material:	R56400 3.8 alpha-beta titanium alloy
Density:	4,410 kg/m3
Grüneisen parameter:	1.208
Equation of state — Autodyn support	Shock was chosen
Bulk modulus	98,690 MPa
Reference temperature	26.85 OC; 300 Kelvin
Specific heat	524.2 J/kg x K
Strength — Autodyn support	Johnson–Cook constants
Shear modulus	43,900 MPa
Yield strength	850 MPa
Constant hardening	326 MPa
Constant hardening exponent	0.338
Thermal exponent	0.797
Constant strain rate	0.0117
Melting temperature	1,608 OC; 1,882 K
Reference strain rate	1.000
Failure — Autodyn support	Johnson–Cook equivalent plastic strain to failure
Constant damage values	-0.089 → 0.247 → -0.494 → 0.0138 → 3.839

Table 15 shows the constant parameters of the spark-machining graphite allotrope materials of the weak interface layering.

Material:	Spark-machining graphite allotrope
Density:	1,680 kg/m3
Grüneisen parameter:	0.236
Equation of state — Autodyn support	Shock was chosen
Bulk modulus	9,570 MPa
Reference temperature	26.85 OC; 300 Kelvin
Specific heat	718.9 J/kg x K
Strength — Autodyn support	Elastic response
Shear modulus	4,640 MPa
Failure — Autodyn support	Effective plastic strain
Internal strain	Plastic

The modular design with multiple interface layers was tested with a high velocity two-stage gas gun. Kinetic energy armour defeat concept was chosen with penetrator specifications described under the Background section. As mentioned previously, the 20 mm thick ceramic was confined in 79 mm thick Maschinenfabrik Halsten AG RHA grade steel, secured by limited aperture, spaced Halstenmetall AG 4340 vacuum arc treated steel alloy.

This backing and support combination was chosen because of their good plastic deformation resistance properties as shown in the “Background” section, which would influence the ballistic performance of any additional ceramic module for the armour system (Goh et al., 2017). The bonding adhesive material is made of cross-over ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber and substituted polyurethane (Cheesman et al., 2005). This also has the added benefit of insulating the tile being hit from surrounding tiles, which promotes module multi-hit potentials (Grujicic et al., 2012).

Figure 3 demonstrates a LS-DYNA hydrocode impact damage simulation from firing tests at (a) 15 µs (subsurface damage dwelling), (b) 30 µs (rear side damage propagation from tensile stress) and (c) 45 µs (damage propagated fully on the frontal side).


Figure 4 shows kinetic energy penetrator hitting the armour design without the inclusion of R56400 3.8 alpha-beta titanium alloy as minority plate materials and without prestressing applied.


Figure 5 shows kinetic energy penetrator hitting the armour design with the inclusion of R56400 3.8 alpha-beta titanium alloy as minority plate materials and prestressing applied.


By comparing the two figures, the armour scheme could contain the force of impact more in comparison to the example where R56400 3.8 alpha-beta titanium alloy was excluded as minority plate materials and prestressing was not applied. The ability of the ceramic armour system to defeat the kinetic energy penetrator at the ceramic’s front surface (i.e. interface defeat) was enhanced. Deformation of ceramic front surface could still happen, but their influence on load distribution will be small (Lundberg et al., 2010).

Interface dwell was also boosted; that is, when the kinetic energy penetrator hit the ceramic armour design, the materials were spread laterally, resulting in little to no penetration (Den Reijer, 1991). This meant higher rate of projectile erosion and better ballistic resistance for the armour module. Figure 6 referenced the analysed figure provided in 2006 by Quan et al. and Century Dynamics, which showcased one such example of interface dwelling. It shows the numerical results for a tungsten rod impacting a confined silicon carbide target at 1,400 mps: (a) 10 µs; (b) 20 µs; (c) 36 µs; and (d) material damage at 28 µs, with interface dwell clearly seen on the ceramic surface in these plots.


With ongoing research and development in ceramic-metal composite system, military forces have gradually employed the use of composite backplates because they can better absorb left-over kinetic energy from impact (Naik et al., 2012). For better protection, the original supporting layer of the armour could be replaced with a combination of three layers comprising two layers of high strength TC4 sandwiching a layer of high modulus polyethylene (HMPE). The high specific strength of the front and rear layers, which generate large deformation upon impact from projectile passing through the ceramic, combined with HMPE which dissipates energy effectively, provides good support for the armour design (Chen et al., 2011).


Discussion

Armoured Vehicles and Tanks Modular Ceramic-Metal Armour (AMA) is an advanced composite armour system, inspired by the concept of the German company IBD Deisenroth Engineering, AMAP. Non-metallic ceramics and composites have been incorporated into more efficient lightweight armour. The high hardness, high strength, high rigidity and low density of the ceramic constituents used together with the weight-saving properties and ductility of composite laminated scheme make for an industrially viable armour system in Yohannes. The proven design can be used effectively for armoured vehicles and tanks. During penetration to the vehicle, the use of ceramic materials would dull the projectile and dissipate incoming force. And then, the backing composite system would absorb the force to finish the process.

However, because certain components of the armour module are quite expensive, in Yohannesian main battle tanks they are only used to reinforce the most vulnerable sections, with the rest being protected by traditional methods (e.g. RHA, similar grade steel). The design aims to provide both light and heavy kinetic energy threats protection for armoured vehicles and tanks. The design is modular. It can be used for multiple impacts, and makes removal of damaged ceramic and other components less hard.


References

Ansys Incorporated (2018). Simulate short duration, severe loadings. Retrieved from https://www.ansys.com/products/structures/ansys-autodyn

ASM International. Advanced composite structures cut weight in U.S. Army tank. Advanced Materials & Processes. 161.9 (September 2003) (p. 35).

Azom Materials (2017). Armor Plated Steel: MIL DTL 12560K and DEF STAN 95-24. Retrieved from https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=14297

Bhatnagar, N. & Asija N. (2016). Durability of high-performance ballistic composites, Lightweight Ballistic Composites - Military and Law-Enforcement Applications: A volume in Woodhead Publishing Series in Composites Science and Engineering (Second Edition) (pp. 231-283). New Delhi, India: Indian Institute of Technology.

Bisalloy Steels Group Limited (2016). Bisalloy Armour: Armour Plate Steel. Retrieved from https://www.bisalloy.com.au/site/Defaul ... ochure.pdf

Bracamonte, L., Loufty, R., Yilmazcoban, I. K. & Rajan, S. D. (2016). Materials and Electrochemical Research Corporation, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America; Sakarya University, Republic of Turkey; and Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States of America. Design, manufacture, and analysis of ceramic-composite armor: A volume in Woodhead Publishing Series in Composites Science and Engineering (pp. 349-367).

Browne, M. W. (1989, July 18). Plastics and Ceramics Replace Steel as the Sinews of War. The New York Times, Science Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/18/scie ... f-war.html

CeramTec GmbH. (2018). Ceramic Materials for light-weight Ceramic Polymer Armor Systems. Retrieved from https://www.ceramtec.com/files/et_armor_systems.pdf

Cheesman, B. A., Jensen, R. & Hopped, C. (2005). Defense Systems Information Analysis Center AMPTIAC: Protecting the future force. Advanced materials and analysis enable robust composite armor (p. 37).

Chen, G., Ren, C., Yang, X., Jin, X. & Guo, T. (March, 2011). The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology: Finite element simulation of high-speed machining of titanium alloy (Ti–6Al–4V) based on ductile failure model. Volume 56, Issue 9–12 (pp. 1027–103).

Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics. Engineering Extremes: Unifying Concepts in Shock, Vibration and Nonlinear Mechanics. Conference and Exposition (February 12-15, 2018). Rosen Plaza, Orlando, Florida, United States of America.

Cottrell, M. G, Yu, J. & Owen, D. R. J. (October 2003). International Journal of Impact Engineering: The adaptive and erosive numerical modelling of confined boron carbide subjected to large-scale dynamic loadings with element conversion to undeformable meshless particles. Volume 28, Issue 9, (pp. 1,017-35). Department of Civil Engineering, University of Wales, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK. Rockfield Software Ltd., Technium, Prince of Wales Dock, Kings Road, Swansea, Wales SA1 8PH, UK.

Cracaiun, C. C. (May, 2009). A Thesis Submited to the Faculty of the Royal Military College of Canada: Evaluation of Light Ceramics for Ballistic Protection. Department of National Defense, 395 Wellington Street, Ottawa OK K1A 0N4, Canada.

Den Reijer, P. C. (1991). Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, PO Box 513 5600 MB Eindhoven, De Zaale, Eindhoven. Impact on ceramic faced armour.

Goh, W. L., Zheng, Y., Yuan, J. & Ng, K. W. (February, 2017). Effects of hardness of steel on ceramic armour module against long rod impact. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 109 (2017) (pp. 419-426). School of Materials Science and Engineering, Nanyang Technological University. Temasek Laboratories, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Drive, 637553, Singapore.

Grujicic, M., Pandurangan, B. & d’Entremont, B. (October, 2012). Elsevier Materials & Design (1980-2015), Volume 41 (pp. 380-393). Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0921, United States.

Hazell, P. J. (2016). Armour: Materials, Theory, and Design. New South Wales, Australia: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Hilmes, R. (1987). Main Battle Tanks: Developments in Design since 1945. Brassey's Defence Publishers Limited, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Johnson–Holmquist damage model. (2018, May 4). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 4, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson%E ... mage_model

Lankford, J., Anderson Jr., C. E. & Walker, J.D. (November, 1995). Investigations of the Ballistic Response of Brittle Materials. CEA Consulting, San Antonio, Texas, USA. Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas, USA. Project 06-5117/002 (p. 114).

Lundberg, P., Renström, R. & Lundberg, B. (March, 2000). Impact of metallic projectiles on ceramic targets: transition between interface defeat and penetration. International Journal of Impact Engineering, Volume 24, Issue 3 (pp. 259-275). FOA, Weapons and Protection Division, S-147 25 Tumba, Sweden.

Naik, N. K., Kumar, S., Ratnaveer, D., Joshi, M. & Akella, K. (2012). International Journal of Damage Mechanics: An energy-based model for ballistic impact analysis of ceramic-composite armors. Aerospace Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India.

Quan, X., Clegg, R. A., Cowler, M. S., Birnbaum, N. K. & Hayhurst, C. J. Numerical simulation of long rods impacting silicon carbide targets using JH-1 model. Century Dynamics, Inc., 1001 Galaxy Way, Suite 325, Concord, CA 94520, USA. Century Dynamics Ltd, Dynamics House, Hurst Road, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 2DT, UK.

Perciballi, W. J., Netherwood, P. H., Burkins, Hauver, G. E., Burkins, M. S. & Gooch, W. A. (1992). Proceedings of 13th international symposium on ballistics, Sundyberg: Variation of target resistance during long-rod penetration into ceramics.

Sarva, S., Nemat-Nasser, S., McGee J. & Issacs J. (2004). Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Center of Excellence for Advanced Materials, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0416, USA. International Journal of Impact Engineering 34 (2007) (pp. 277-302).

Simons, J. W., Johnsen B. B., Kobayashi T., Shockey D. A. & Rahbek D. B. (2017). Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI), P.O. Box 25, NO-2027 Kjeller, Kingdom of Norway; and the Centre for Fracture Physics, SRI International, 333 Ravenswood Avenue, Menlo Park, CA 94025, United States of America.

Yang L. & Miyanaji H. (August, 2017). Ceramic Additive Manufacturing: A Review of Current Status and Challenges. Conference: Solid Freeform Fabrication 2017: Proceedings of the 28th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium – An Additive Manufacturing Conference.

Yap, C. K. (September, 2012). A Thesis Submited to the Naval Graduate School: The Impact of Armour on the Design, Utilization and Survivability of Ground Vehicles: The History of Armor Development and Use. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14850, United States of America.

Ward-Close, C. M. & Winstone, M. R. (February, 1994). Developments in the processing of titanium alloy metal matrix composites. Structural Materials Centre, DRA Farnborough & Interface Analysis Centre, University of Bristol, UK.

HASF GmbH & Co. KG • AMA • 2

By: Helga Weiß
1 Oct, 2019 2:07 pm EYT

News Post

---

HASF submission to the parliamentary Select Committee on Engineering and Science

This informal submission is from HASF Limited Partnership listed on the Royal Alexandria Stock Exchange and registered in the Kingdom of Alexandria. It is being submitted on behalf of HASF Limited Partnership by the Bar Association’s registered Barrister Helga Weiß [ citizen profile ] of Möller Barristers and Solicitors.

Submission title: Smart Aerospace Composites
Certified copy—formalised by Clerk of the Committee

In the field of massive and complex manufacturing we are now in need of materials, with properties, that can be manipulated according to our needs. Smart materials are among those unique materials. The purpose of this submission is to briefly comment on the future direction of smart material development for the purposes of aerospace manufacturing, and to illustrate how smart materials of the future are beginning to replace mainstream industrial materials in the Nineteen Countries.

The two examples included in this submission are the T650-35 carbon fibre and AFR-PE-4 polyimide matrix, in relation to their application outside Yohannes for the American Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit and similar aircraft designs of other countries. The benefits of their adoption include: fuel consumption reduction, less parts duplication, and system performance, maintenance and repair improvements. Factors to be taken into consideration include: their high research and development costs at present, and the lack of sufficient safety standards and testing. Smart composites such as the T650-35/AFR-PE-4 have the potential to address some of the problems faced by the aerospace industry of Yohannes.

Background

In the field of massive and complex manufacturing we are now in need of materials, with properties, that can be used to generate or store energy; in other words, be manipulated according to our needs.

Smart materials are among those unique materials that can be manipulated according to the controller’s needs, or can react to external factors such as man-made threats or the surrounding terrain and temperature (environmental factors). There are two examples of smart materials used by aerospace engineers today—T650-35 carbon fibre and AFR-PE-4 polyimide matrix.

The T650-35 is a continuous, high strength, standard modulus carbon fibre with excellent oxidation resistance and composite performance (Cytec Aerospace). The AFR-PE-4 is a high-temperature thermosetting polyimide resin able to withstand temperatures of up to 343^oC (Maverick Molding). They are combined as the polymer matrix composite material T650-35/AFR-PE-4 (NASA). Figure 1, Tensile fracture morphology of PETI-330/T650-35 (Research Gate), shows the tensile fracture characteristics of a T650-350 combination.


Figure 1: Tensile fracture morphology of PETI-330/T650-35. (a) and (b) for in-plane method, (c) and (d) for through-thickness method.

Composite smart materials such as the T650-35/AFR-PE-4 are gradually replacing conventional industrial grade materials for the latest aircraft designs (Federation of American Scientists). Over the years, there has been exponential growth in demand for smart materials from aerospace sectors beyond the International Incidents (BusinessWire).

Discussion

The slow but gradual replacement of mainstream industrial grade materials with smart materials such as the T650-35/AFR-PE-4 polymer matrix composite offers clear benefits:

1. Fuel consumption reduction;
2. Less parts duplication; and
3. System performance, maintenance and repair improvements.

One clear benefit of smart materials such as the T650/AFR-PE-4 is their ability to reduce fuel consumption. Polymer matrix composites provide better strength and stiffness to weight ratio than aluminium (used widely by aircraft manufacturers), meaning they are more lightweight than their contemporary mainstream industrial counterparts, and they offer better protection at the same time (Composites Analysis). As the aerospace industry further strives to ensure more fuel efficiency, the adoption of lightweight composite materials such as the T650/AFR-PE-4 will only grow in future (Strategic Business Insights).

Another clear benefit of smart materials such as the T650/AFR-PE-4 is reduction in production costs involved in manufacturing from less parts duplication (Research Gate). For instance, the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit and similar aircraft designs of other countries beyond the International Incidents are some of the latest aircraft designs to incorporate the use of AFR-PE-4 for its hot trailing edge (Defense Update). As more capital are invested in the further expansion of AFR-PE-4 production, the future may see the partial or complete replacement of existing HTE polyimide materials, which have low operational lifetime due to lack of resistance against persistent heat and engine exhaust exposure (Composite World).


Figure 2: Yet another similar design to the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit designed by yet another country beyond the International Incidents.

Finally, other benefits of smart materials such as the T650/AFR-PE-4 are that they can offer promising solutions to system performance, maintenance and repair improvements in future (The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society). The performance advantages of smart materials such as the T650/AFR-PE-4 composite compensate for their R&D costs (Congress of the United States). The benefit accrued—and consequently their adoption—will only increase in future as the select committee makes it possible to mobilise more funds from existing public-private partnerships (e.g. the Bank of Yohannes), restricted by and in accordance with Parliament’s annual Estimates of Appropriations.

Some factors must be taken into consideration to ensuring successful adoption of these smart composite materials for the industry in future. They include:

1. High R&D costs at present,
2. Lack of sufficient safety standards and testing, and
3. Lack of knowledge among Yohannesian specialists about smart materials and structures.

Finally, they are prohibitively expensive for the majority of players within the aerospace industry. Only exceptionally well-funded government agencies (e.g. DARPA and their counterparts beyond the International Incidents) and leading corporations (e.g. Boeing and their counterparts beyond the International Incidents) will be able to afford the share of R&D costs mandated by their governments (Rana & Fangueiro, 2008).

Lack of sufficient safety standards and testing must also be considered (Azo Materials). The Yohannesian aerospace industry is comparatively smaller than many other countries beyond the International Incidents, but it is also known for its excellent safety standards and testing requirements as legislated by Parliament, and new innovations must meet these safety and testing requirements before they can be adopted for use in industry (Schwartz, 2008).

Recommendations

We ask for the Select Committee on Engineering and Science to allocate more funding for Smart Composite Materials Systems under the Estimates of Appropriations for the Executive Council for the year ending 30 June 2021.

References

• Azo Materials. The Materials Used in the Design of Aircraft Wings. June 9, 2015. http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=12117
• BusinessWire. Rise in R&D Efforts to Boost the Global Piezoelectric Smart Materials Market. April 6, 2016. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/2 ... -Materials
• CompositesAnalysis. Overview. http://www.compositesanalysis.com
• Composite World. New composite material for B-2 bomber sustainment. 22 November, 2010. http://www.compositesworld.com/news/new ... b-2-bomber
• Congress of the United States (June 1988). Advanced Materials by Design. Washington DC, USA: US Government Printing Office.
• Cytec Aerospace. Thornel T-650/35 Pan-based Fibre. 21 May, 2012. http://cytec.com/sites/default/files/da ... 052112.pdf
• Defense Update. New Composite to Improve B-2 Durability. November 19, 2010. http://defense-update.com/20101119_b2_hte.html
• Federation of American Scientists. B-2 Spirit (United States Senate Hearing). April 14, 1997. http://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2.htm
• Maverick Molding. High Temperature Polyimide. http://www.maverickmolding.com/high-tem ... /afr-pe-4/
• NASA. Mechanical Properties of T650-35/AFR-PE-4 at Elevated Temperatures for Lightweight Aeroshell Designs. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 013437.pdf
• Rana S., Fangueiro R. (2016). Advanced Composite Materials for Aerospace Engineering. Woodhead Publishing.
• Research Gate. Tensile fracture morphology of PETI-330/T650-35. (a) and (b) for in-plane method, (c) and (d) for through-thickness method. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/230 ... r-in-plane
• Research Gate. Advanced materials for application in the aerospace and automotive industries. 18 November, 2008. https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Industries
• Schwartz M. (2008). Smart Materials. CRC Press.
• Strategic Business Insights. Polymer-Matrix Composites. © 2009-2016. http://www.strategicbusinessinsights.co ... /pmc.shtml
• The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society. Reducing Costs in Aircraft: The Metals Affordability Initiative Consortium. Copyright held by TMM in 2000. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/00 ... -0003.html
• United States Air Force. A B-2 Spirit is towed to a parking spot Feb. 12 at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii. http://www.af.mil/News/Photos.aspx

HASF GmbH & Co. KG • SAC (news) • 3