Ballistic Resistance of UHPFRC Panels Subjected to Armor-Piercing Projectiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, thin armor panels were designed and constructed using ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC), and their ballistic resistance to armor-piercing small arms fire was assessed. The fiber dosages selected for the panels were 3% and 4% by volume, with average UHPFRC compressive strengths at 28 days of 144 MPa (±4.5) and 141 MPa (±12.1), respectively. The panels’ front and rear surfaces were 350×350 mm, and the thicknesses were 40, 50, and 60 mm. Ballistic performances of the panels were assessed at two bullet velocities representing different operational distances. The two distances were based on a threat associated with urban operations (approximately 10 m) and field operations (approximately 300 m). A 7.62 mm×51 armor-piercing round was used for testing. The testing demonstrated that at close range the panels could absorb a high level of energy, up to 3,089 J, and at this range, all panels were perforated. The results of the 60-mm panels impacted by a 300-m equivalent range shot, absorbed energy of up to 2,066 J, and slowed down the projectile to a very low velocity or a complete stop. Basic and advanced predictive models were used to estimate the resistant energy of the panels according to material characteristics such as fiber content, thickness, and mechanical properties. A numerical model was also developed. An ANSYS version R18.2 smooth particle hydrodynamics Autodyn model provided good predictions of the crater dimensions. It also demonstrated an impact behavior similar to that of the UHPFRC panel compared to real tests; however, further work is needed to represent the bullet core and jacket more accurately.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".