CDE themed comp - synbio part 1
•
0 likes•3,014 views
The document discusses utilizing synthetic biology to develop novel transparent materials for defence applications such as transparent armor. It describes two challenges for a competition: 1) producing and characterizing novel transparent materials, and 2) developing adhesives and interlayer materials compatible with transparent armor. Currently, transparent armor has poor ballistic performance compared to opaque armor and is expensive due to specialized materials and processing required. Synthetic biology may be able to create new transparent composite materials inspired by biology with enhanced properties for armor applications.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to CDE themed comp - synbio part 1
Similar to CDE themed comp - synbio part 1 (20)
More from Defence and Security Accelerator
More from Defence and Security Accelerator (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
CDE themed comp - synbio part 1
- 2. Synthetic biology for transparent materials CDE themed competition 12/9/2016 OFFICIALCrown copyright 2016 Dstl
- 3. 12/9/2016 How can synthetic biology help address intractable defence challenges? Crown copyright 2016 Dstl OFFICIAL
- 4. Priorities in the competition 12/9/2016 Synthetic biology novelty, quality, impact, risk, value Incremental, vague, outside scope, no defence application identified Challenge 1: production and characterisation of novel transparent materials Challenge 2: adhesives and interlayer materials compatible with transparent materials Utilising synthetic biology for transparent materials for Defence and Security Crown copyright 2016 Dstl OFFICIAL
- 5. Synthetic biology for transparent materials • transparent armour • functional transparent materials for sensor protection • adhesives for interlayer materials OFFICIAL 12/9/2016 Crown copyright 2016 Dstl
- 6. Transparent armour OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl
- 7. Transparent armour • uses of transparent armour • some fundamentals of armour performance • why transparent armour materials are inferior to opaque armour materials OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl
- 8. Transparent armour Recurring theme … • interfaces have significant effects both optically and ballistically • factors that enhance ballistic performance may degrade optical performance • some factors may have both positive and negative influence OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl
- 9. Transparent armour Currently has relatively poor ballistic performance • soda-lime glass • borosilicate glass • polycarbonate Performance worse than opaque armour Potential transparent armour materials are expensive • sapphire • aluminium oxynitride • magnesium aluminate spinel • lithia glass ceramic Surface finishing is expensive OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl
- 10. Transparent armour Particularly a problem for • logistic vehicles • VIP cars • protected patrol • rotorcraft • eye and sensor protection Extra weight of transparent armour results in • raised centre of mass = degraded handling • increased cost of ownership • reduced payload • increased logistic burden OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl
- 11. OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl Vehicle transparent armour Armoured saloon (CSAP) 2.3-2.6 tonnes APV 1.5 4.4 tonnes SAXON 11 tonnes SNATCH 3.6 tonnes TAVERN 5.4 tonnes Challenger 2 ~65 Tonnes
- 12. © Crown copyright 2016 Dstl OFFICIAL Airborne transparent armour
- 13. OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl Eye protection
- 14. © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl Sensor protection OFFICIAL
- 15. Priorities Armoured fighting vehicles • transparent armour covers a very small area • protects periscopes, cameras, sensors • primary purpose – to provide optical access • enhancements valuable only if they can preserve optical function OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl
- 16. Priorities Logistic and support vehicles • transparent armour may cover a large area • much larger percentage of the platform weight • raises centre of mass • protects the highest value component – the crew OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl
- 17. Priorities Rotorcraft, covert vehicles, aircraft • weight is critical, situational awareness is critical, protection is critical Eyes • valuable asset • “platform” cannot support large weight Sensors • multiple-bandwidth OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl
- 18. © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl 09 December 2016 Priorities • weight • thickness • material choice – multiple bandwidth – adhesives and surfaces • cost – basic material – processing
- 19. OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl Impact induced stress waves By divergence or interaction with • inclusions • voids • defects • interfaces • boundaries • surfaces A compressive wave can generate • shear • tension
- 20. OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl Impact induced stress waves Stress wave conversion at an interface
- 21. Stress wave propagation in hard faced armour Ductile backing Ceramic or glass Glueline Impact induced stress waves OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl
- 22. CERAMIC TILE OR GLASS ADHESIVE BACKING Bad design Good design Hard faced armour OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl
- 23. Optical effects • optical effects may take place at macroscopic or microscopic interfaces or inclusions • any process that removes optical energy from the original optical path contributes to “opacity” Reflection Refraction Absorption Scattering OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl
- 24. Opaque vs transparent Good armour materials are hard and strong Such materials are often network covalent solids • often have anisotropic crystal structures • large single crystal pieces expensive and may fail through single crack propagation • practical materials often multi-crystalline OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl
- 25. Opaque vs transparent Materials can be enhanced with toughening mechanisms • often crack-tip stopping mechanisms • rely on interfaces and inclusions Interfaces, inclusions and agglomerates give rise to optical reflection, refraction, scattering and absorption • good armour materials tend to be opaque OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl
- 26. © Crown copyright 2016 Dstl Transparent armour Conventional transparent armour Transparency reduction as a result of impact OFFICIAL
- 27. Material properties Material Density (kg/m2 ) E (GPa) Hardness (kg/mm2 ) HARD Sapphire 3980 420 2200 Aluminium oxynitride 3700 317 1850 Magnesium aluminate spinel 3590 268 1520 Lithia glass ceramic 2530 101 803 INTERMEDIATE Fused Silica 2500 73 460 Float glass 2495 59 540 Borosilicate 2225 54 580 SOFT Polycarbonate 1200 2.35 <20 Polyvinyl butyral PVB 1100 2.1 <20 © Crown copyright 2016 Dstl OFFICIAL
- 28. Spalling behaviour of polycarbonate backing OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl Armour piercing projectile Glass ceramic Polyurethane glue Polycarbonate
- 29. Reduction of maximum stress at armour/backing interface OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl Glass ceramic Polyurethane Polycarbonate 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Max stress GPa 1 2 3 4 No. of layersGlass ceramic Polyurethane Polycarbonate
- 30. Transparent armour • choice of transparent protective materials is small • factors that enhance protection can degrade transparency • generally heavier than equivalent opaque armour • more expensive than opaque armour • tends to protect important parts • improvement would be highly beneficial OFFICIAL© Crown copyright 2016 Dstl
- 31. The role of synthetic biology? • we need strong, tough transparent systems – across multiple bandwidths – with managed reflectance • biological systems already do this – nacre type systems are inherently tough – templating can control fine structure – many biological examples of morphological reflectance management © Crown copyright 2016 Dstl OFFICIAL
- 32. The role of synthetic biology? • composite transparent systems need adhesives and coatings – synthetic biology has already shown capability here • current choice of transparent armour materials is small – synthetic biology can expand our material choice • grinding and polishing is expensive – can synthetic biology produce net shape and finished surface? OFFICIAL