For Show or Safety

For Show or Safety?
- A Study on Structure, Ballistic Performance and Authenticity of Seventeenth Century Breastplates
Sylvia Leever
MSc Thesis August 2005 Supervision by dr. J. Dik and dr. ir. J. Sietsma
For Show or Safety?
Master Thesis August 2005
Abstract
In the seventeenth century soldiers usually wore some form of armour, most notably breastplates, to protect themselves against firearms. However, firearms became more and more powerful in time and the thickness of armour had to be increased to be able to offer enough protection. After armour had lost it protective quality and soldiers abandoned wearing armour, leaders still wore armour to indicate their status, so the armour was for show. But how much protection would a breastplate really offer the wearer? To determine the amount of protection 17th century breastplates would give, two specimens have undergone ballistic testing. The results from the ballistic testing will be linked with results obtained through non-destructive testing. A model is proposed, based on experiments and literature, which links the weapon parameters to the critical thickness of armour (below which perforation of the breastplate is likely). The material properties of the breastplate will determine how the critical thickness is influenced by the weapon parameters. A prediction of the protective quality of other original breastplates can be made with this model, although more investigation towards the parameters influencing the relation between critical thickness and weapon properties is necessary. Ideally only parameters that can be measured non-destructively, like thickness and hardness, are necessary to predict perforation or no perforation due to a bullet, of which the size, mass and speed at variable distances are known. This way a prediction of the protection offered by breastplates can be done through non-destructive testing of the specimens only, and future destructive research on original armour can be limited. Other tests to determine the properties like composition, microstructure and hardness of the breastplates were also performed. One of the two breastplates turned out to be a nineteenth century replica, as indicated by its shape, microstructure, texture and low variable thickness. The other, original 17th century breastplate shows a layered microstructure, which indicates the forging of plates of iron together to increase the thickness for better protection.
ii
For Show or Safety?
Acknowledgements
First of all I would like to thank the Delft Centre for Materials for funding my research under the Young Wild Ideas (YWI) flag, without this funding most of this research would not have been possible, or at least had become very difficult to pursue. Thanks also to David Starley and Thom Richardson of the Royal Armouries in Leeds, England, who have encouraged me to do some research on 17th century armour, and without them, I would not have thought of this project. I am indebted to Dirk Visser of the Physics department of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) for arranging and making it possible to go to England for neutron diffraction analysis at the ISIS facility at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. I would also like to thank, in no particular order, the following people for helping me on various parts of my research: Koen Herlaar, PML; Peter van Doorn, TNO; Arjan Rijkenberg, Corus; Bram Huis, Erik Peekstok and Ben Oude Engberink, DUT; Robert Douglas Smith for proof reading this report and for giving additional data; Winfried Kockelmann at ISIS for helping out with the neutron diffraction analysis and texture analysis; Joop Hubers for providing original bullets; Fred Hammers for taking the photographs of the breastplates as received, and everybody else who has supported me during this project.
iii
For Show or Safety?
Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... iii List of Figures ............................................................................................ vi List of Tables .............................................................................................vii 1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Goal .................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Methods of testing ............................................................................... 1 1.3 Examined breastplates ......................................................................... 2 1.4 Outline of the report ............................................................................ 3 2 History on armour in the 17th century .......................................................... 4 2.1 Warfare in the seventeenth century ....................................................... 4 2.2 Weapons effectiveness on the battlefield................................................. 5 2.3 Equipment of soldiers........................................................................... 7 2.4 Production of armour ........................................................................... 9 2.5 Testing of armour.............................................................................. 11 2.6 Modern research on armour ................................................................ 12 2.6.1 Microstructure and Composition ..................................................... 12 2.6.2 Hardness .................................................................................... 12 2.6.3 Thickness ................................................................................... 12 2.6.4 Tensile testing ............................................................................. 13 2.6.5 Test firing 17th century weapons .................................................... 13 2.7 Importance of destructive testing ........................................................ 14 3 Analytical techniques and sample preparation ............................................. 15 3.1 Sampling of the breastplates............................................................... 15 3.2 Breastplates ..................................................................................... 16 3.2.1 Composition ................................................................................ 16 3.2.2 Microstructure ............................................................................. 17 3.2.3 Hardness .................................................................................... 17 3.2.4 Thickness ................................................................................... 18 3.2.5 Tensile testing ............................................................................. 18 3.2.6 Neutron diffraction ....................................................................... 19 3.2 Bullets ............................................................................................. 22 3.2.1 Composition ................................................................................ 22 3.2.2 Casting....................................................................................... 22 3.2.3 Compression Test ........................................................................ 23 3.3 Ballistic testing.................................................................................. 23 4 Results .................................................................................................. 24 4.1 Breastplates ..................................................................................... 24 4.1.1 Composition ................................................................................ 24 4.1.2 Microstructure ............................................................................. 24 4.1.3 Hardness .................................................................................... 31 4.1.4 Thickness ................................................................................... 33 4.1.5 Tensile testing ............................................................................. 35 4.1.6 Neutron diffraction ....................................................................... 36 4.2 Bullets ............................................................................................. 41 4.2.1 Composition ................................................................................ 41 4.2.2 Compression Test ........................................................................ 41 4.3 Ballistic testing.................................................................................. 41 4.3.1 Test results ................................................................................. 41 4.3.2 Energy versus thickness................................................................ 45
iv
For Show or Safety?
5 Discussion ............................................................................................. 47 5.1 Introduction...................................................................................... 47 5.2 Authenticity of BP2 ............................................................................ 47 5.3 Layered structure of BP1 .................................................................... 48 5.4 Critical thickness of armour................................................................. 49 6 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 55 7 References............................................................................................. 56 Appendices ............................................................................................... 57
For Show or Safety?
List of Figures
Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 1: The examined breastplates, BP1 (left) and BP2................................... 3 2: Battle of Breitenfeld, 1631, depicted in a contemporary drawing ........... 4 3: 17th century flintlock musket and pistol ............................................. 6 4: Cuirass (c. 1590) of Prince Maurice of Orange with named parts ........... 7 5: Armour for a pikeman (left) and for a harquebusier/musketeer ............. 8 6: Weaponsmith in the seventeenth century ........................................ 11 7: Experiment in Graz, 1989, before (left) and after shooting ................. 14 8: Sample locations for chemical and microstructure analysis ................. 15 9: Sample locations for microstructure analysis .................................... 16 10: Test rod dimensions in mm for tensile testing ................................. 16 11: Schematic view of the ROTAX instrument....................................... 19 12: Locations on the breastplates that have been scanned by ROTAX ...... 20 13: Sample orientation in GEM analysis ............................................... 21 14: Original seventeenth century bullet mould...................................... 22 15: Experimental setup at PML for ballistic testing ................................ 23 16: Microstructure of BP1A ................................................................ 26 17: Microstructure of BP1B ................................................................ 27 18: Microstructure of BP2 .................................................................. 27 19: Twinning in BP1-Iy ..................................................................... 28 20: Absence of pearlite bands in outer rim of cross-section of BP1 .......... 28 21: Pearlite bands in centre of cross-section of BP1............................... 29 22: Pearlite in between ferrite grains .................................................. 29 23: Layer boundaries in cross-section of BP1........................................ 30 24: Microhardness of BP1 .................................................................. 32 25: Microhardness in the centre of BP1 ............................................... 33 26: 3D scan of BP1 with thickness profile in mm................................... 34 27: 3D scan of BP2 with thickness profile in mm................................... 35 28: Zoomed diffraction pattern .......................................................... 37 29: Difference in diffraction pattern of BP1 and BP2 .............................. 37 30: Difference in diffraction pattern of BP1 .......................................... 38 31: Pole figures of (110) planes of rolled and annealed bcc iron .............. 39 32: Pole figures for BP1 and BP2 ........................................................ 40 33: Displacement in BP1 in mm.......................................................... 43 34: Displacement in BP2 in mm.......................................................... 44 35: Energy vs. thickness as measured................................................. 46 36: Critical thickness of armour.......................................................... 50 37: Critical thickness at various distances............................................ 51 38: Critical thickness of armour through time....................................... 52 39: Average thickness of breastplates through time .............................. 53
Figure on title page: Cavalry Battle, Jan van Huchtenburg (1647 1733)
vi
For Show or Safety?
List of Tables
Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 1: Hardness in HV of some pieces of armour ......................................... 12 2: Thickness values in mm of several pieces of armour ........................... 13 3: Results of chemical analysis with elements in weight % ...................... 24 4: Hardness in HV of various samples of BP1 and BP2 ............................ 31 5: Results from tensile testing............................................................. 36 6: Phase analysis of GEM and ROTAX data ............................................ 38 7: Elements present in lead bullets in wt% with standard error ................ 41 8: Results of ballistic testing ............................................................... 42 9: Weight loss of bullets ..................................................................... 44 10: Test firing selected 17th century weapons ........................................ 51
vii
For Show or Safety?
1 Introduction
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the use of firearms gradually increased and the firearm became the main weapon on the battlefield. Wearing some form of armour was the traditional way to dress in combat. For making armour in the seventeenth century, iron was favoured instead of steel, because steel is more difficult to work with than iron, and was also much more expensive in that period. The thickness of iron plates was increased to improve the protection armour would offer. The armourers in the seventeenth century were known to make their armour proof against impacts from at least pistol bullets. In this research two breastplates of alleged 17th century origin are put to the test. Were they able to protect the wearers against bullet impacts from either pistols or muskets? Also attention is paid to the quality of the breastplates with respect to the metallurgy. The composition and microstructure can give valuable information about the performance of the plates. Various analytical techniques are used to determine the different properties of the material. The battle techniques and weapon performances in the period of the origin of the breastplates are discussed, and the production and testing procedures of armour are described. Technological research on armour has not been very extensive. Most research to date is restricted to non-destructive research like hardness measurements and local microstructure examination of flakes or rims of armour. Almost no destructive testing of original samples has been done. There has been some testing on hardening and tempering of two pieces of sixteenth century armour, an Italian vambrace (arm defence) of c.1570, and an Innsbruck pauldron (shoulder defence) of c. 1550, of which the composition was determined by SEM analysis and the carbon content by metallography. The samples were also tested on yield stress and elongation with tensile testing [Williams, 2003]. On breastplates no destructive testing is known to date, with the exception of a 1570 Augsburg breastplate, which had one bullet fired at it [Krenn, 1989].
1.1 Goal
In this research the focus lies on determining the amount of protection the breastplates will offer against bullet impacts. To do this, it is necessary to find out what the properties like microstructure, hardness and thickness of the material of the breastplates are. A critical thickness will be determined for ballistic performance. The results from the ballistic testing will be linked with results obtained through non-destructive testing, also with results from earlier research. This way a prediction of the protection offered by breastplates can be done through non-destructive testing of the specimens only, and future destructive research on original armour can be limited.
1.2 Methods of testing

In order to determine the properties of the material of the breastplates, several tests should be performed. The composition of the material can give valuable information about the concentration of elements and thus indicates what phases can form given certain circumstances. This can be verified by looking at the microstructure, which can give information on the history of the material, whether any heat treatments were performed on the material or if any deformation on a microscopic scale is present. Another way of finding out what phases are present in the material is diffraction. X-Ray diffraction will give 1
For Show or Safety?
information about the top layer (10 20 m) of the material, whereas neutron diffraction will give the average phase composition of the bulk material. This latter technique is therefore used. Also with neutron diffraction a texture analysis can be carried out which can give information about a preference in orientation or texture. This can indicate a certain technique that has been used to make the object in question (e.g. cast, rolled or minted materials each give different textures). The hardness of the material is an indication for the performance on yield strength and impact strength. To find out whether the material has a good performance under tensile stress, a tensile test is performed. The performance of the breastplates is also dependent on the (local) thickness. With 3D scanning a thickness profile with an accuracy of 0.1 mm has been made. To find out what the protective quality of the breastplates is, ballistic testing is performed. Lead bullets were fired at the breastplates with varying speeds to find out where the limit of protection of either breastplate lies. Some of the testing techniques mentioned above, especially the ballistic testing, tensile testing and in a lesser degree the composition and microstructure analysis, will (partially) destroy the object in question. This is necessary because without destructive testing it is not possible to determine some properties of the material. In this research it is not possible to solve the key problem - the amount of protection the breastplates offer the wearer without destructive testing. However, damage to the object is generally not desired or permitted when handling antiques. Therefore, as much information as possible should be obtained through non-destructive testing. This research will also try to limit future destructive testing of original armour by linking the results from destructive testing to those results obtained through non-destructive testing.
1.3 Examined breastplates

For this research two seventeenth century breastplates were available, the first of which was purchased from Andrew Lumley, an arms and armour dealer in England. It is a relatively heavy breastplate, weighing 5.48 kg, and has much surface corrosion. According to Lumley, the breastplate was made between 1600 and 1630 in Northern Europe, probably Germany. It is of a type that was used in the Thirty Years War. The provenance is a collection in England where it has been for the last 15 years. In this report this breastplate is referred to as BP1. The second breastplate was obtained through West Street Antiques, a dealer in Antique Arms & Armour and Period Furniture, in Dorking, Surrey, England. According to the salesmen of WSA, it is an English cavalry troopers breastplate from the English Civil War period, c. 1645. It is probably of North European manufacture, possibly Dutch. In this report this breastplate is referred to as BP2. The weight of the breastplate is much less than of the first one, only 2.42 kg. The surface appears to have undergone a treatment with an anglegrinder to remove some corrosion; the inside is painted black, which was probably done to prevent the inside from corroding due to body heat and sweat. Also a few original bullets from the seventeenth century (found in an archaeological dig of a cesspool in Groenlo, the Netherlands) were available for study. These were made in the Eighty Years War and probably used during the siege of Grol in 1627 (as Groenlo was called in the 17th century).
For Show or Safety?
Figure 1: The examined breastplates, BP1 (left) and BP2
1.4 Outline of the report

In the next chapter the production, use and testing of armour in the seventeenth century, the effectiveness of weapons on the battlefield and the way of warfare in that period are discussed. In paragraph 2.6 all relevant modern testing of armour is described and results up to date are given. In the last paragraph of chapter two the importance of destructive testing with respect to this research is indicated. In the third chapter all analysing techniques and equipment used are described, and the procedure at each testing is made clear. The following chapter contains the results of each technique, which are discussed and where possible compared with the results of other, similar research. In chapter five three main topics that arose from the results are specifically discussed, in order to reach a conclusion and give some recommendations in chapter six.
For Show or Safety?
2 History on armour in the 17th century

2.1 Warfare in the seventeenth century
There was much turmoil in Western Europe in the seventeenth century. The Dutch Republic was fighting for her independence against Spain in the Eighty Years War (1568 1648), and in Germany the Thirty Years War (1618 1648) was fought, a war between Imperialists (Protestants) and Catholics. Not only Germany was involved in this war, but France, Spain, Poland, Denmark and Sweden were also trying to gain influence in the German case.
Figure 2: Battle of Breitenfeld, 1631, depicted in a contemporary drawing (selection) Under the influence of Prince Maurice of Orange the Dutch armies developed new tactics, which were partially copied by Gustavus Adolphus, the Swedish King. Some of these innovations were: the drawing up of the infantry in six, later three ranks, and its ability to perform spectacular wheeling manoeuvres; the deployment of the line in the attack and the use of light artillery in the offensive. This required a strict discipline of the infantry, and when they were not fighting, they were training every day. Also field defences were built by the soldiers themselves. This was not only a tactical defensive move, but also ensured the continual discipline of the troops. Another example of the discipline of the soldiers can be found in the loading and firing of a musket. This process was broken down into forty-three separate actions, which had to be learned by continuous daily drill. All steps have been illustrated and written down in 1607 in De Gheyns The Exercise of Armes. Also drills for pikemen and other soldiers have been written down and illustrated in the beginning of the 17th century. The ratio between pikemen and musketeers gradually changed in the sixteenth and seventeenth century from about 5 : 1 to the opposite, one pikeman 4
For Show or Safety?
for five musketeers. Also the general number of soldiers that formed an army increased, owing to financial and organisational improvements and the standardisation of weapons. However, financial, logistical and personal factors all set limits on the size and the actual dedication of armies. Seventeenth-century sources indicate that between 30,000 and 40,000 troops in the field was the absolute maximum. And these could only be maintained for a brief period. Such large armies had also a large influence on society; citizens were highly taxed to finance the army, while the armies themselves plundered and destroyed indiscriminately. The tactical revolution, the increase in scale, and the greater influence of the army and war on the civil society did not evolve in the brief period around the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century, but was a gradual process, pertaining particularly to the eighteenth century. Most battles were still fought along traditional lines and victories were rarely determined by the implementation of new tactical principles. Just as these had been in earlier times, warfare and the results of battles were determined by a large number of factors, which were not definitively influenced by a better organized army and tactical innovations: climate and terrain, disease and desertion, leadership and personal capacities of the officers and generals among them. The ultimate outcome of a battle was decided during the combat of man against man, in the midst of a general mle of troops. No matter how advanced the army might be in other matters, however subtle the manoeuvres of the troops were in the face of the advancing infantry of its opponent, the battle was ultimately decided in the chaos of man-to-man fighting. The tactical formula that Gustavus Adolphus applied was the following [Moor in: Van der Hoeven ed., 1997]: first the enemy infantry would come under fire from the artillery and the musketeers, then cavalry charges, and finally attacks made by the infantry using short pikes should give a decisive outcome to the battle. He reduced the basic organisation to three or four companies, which together formed a battalion (500 men). He carried out daily training, exercises, and arms drill with the same strictness as Maurice of Orange.
2.2 Weapons effectiveness on the battlefield

Battles were fought at very close quarters. Cheaply manufactured military muskets, not equipped with sights, were by no means reliable. The distance over which it could contribute to the battle was less than 200 metres, whereas the effective range lies between 30 and 100 metres. The theoretical effectiveness was determined through test-firing muskets at a static target of 1.75 m by 3 m [Hughes, 1974]. It was found that the percentage of shots actually hitting the target drops off quickly with increasing distance beyond 100 m, to less than 20% at distances greater than 250 metres. In the actual battle however, shots were fired on animate targets, which lowers the theoretical effectiveness of the musket. Also, the musket was subject to technical failures, which can partly be attributed to the experience of the firer. The amount of powder could be inaccurate, which would cause variations in the performance of the weapon, particularly with regard to the range. The firing mechanism was unreliable and misfires occurred frequently. Matchlock guns were of no use in wet weather. Errors related to stress and pressure of the men in battle should not be underestimated. A strong nerve is needed to aim a musket accurately when the enemy is charging at you and there would be only time for one or two shots before the charge would crash in. Training and discipline could ensure that fewer nerves would break down at the critical moment. Another aspect with respect to the effectiveness of the firepower of the infantry is human fatigue. The musketeers often had to perform on the battlefield after a long and tiring march to get there in the first place. In most cases they 5
For Show or Safety?
had not been properly fed and at the critical moment, the musket would feel heavy and the point would drop, thus causing the shot to be inaccurate. Infantry could not load and fire on the move, so they engaged when static at a distance of around 50 metres. The ammunition supply also influenced the firepower of the armies. The British infantryman carried 60 rounds on his person, and this seems to have been sufficient for most battles. In more elongated battles the firer could run out of ammunition. In more isolated posts, it was difficult to replenish the stock. When firing a musket, the exploding gunpowder leaves a dense white smoke. The batteries of soldiers would be enveloped in the smoke, so that the soldiers were not able to see the enemy ranks. This reduced the time in which artillery could maintain its maximum potential rate of fire.
Figure 3: 17th century flintlock musket (c. 1650) and pistol (c. 1645) All of the factors described above lead to the conclusion that the effectiveness of the weapons on a 17th century battlefield is not very great. The chance of actually being hit by a bullet is definitely not negligible, but that is mainly because of the large numbers of muskets that were in play during the battle. Most musketeers did not wear any armour, but if they did, like the pikemen, the question remains whether it would have saved the wearer against the impact of a bullet. What energy would a bullet from a seventeenth century musket or pistol have at 30 or 100 metres? Would this energy be sufficient to defeat certain armours? If the armour would not give enough protection, most soldiers would have abandoned wearing them, because of the weight that would slow them down and tire them more quickly. The fact that still a lot of soldiers wore armour in the early seventeenth century should indicate that it had a significant effect. When the common soldiers abandoned wearing armour at the end of the seventeenth and in the eighteenth century, the generals and other leaders would still sometimes equip themselves with decorated armour. The protection these armours would give the wearer was not sufficient, so from that point onwards armour would have a decorative function only and indicated the status of the wearer, who was able to afford the armour. Wearing armour was completely abandoned after around 1660, and for a considerable period before that the common soldier was wearing less and less armour.
For Show or Safety?
2.3 Equipment of soldiers
Figure 4: Cuirass (c. 1590) of Prince Maurice of Orange with named parts In the army of the seventeenth century there were different units with different tasks - infantry, cavalry and artillery. Within the infantry there were different roles: there is mainly a distinction between the pikeman, the one who carried a pike of over 5 metres long, and the musketeer, with a matchlock or flintlock musket. Aside from the very long pike, the pikeman also had a short sword, and wore armour suitable for hand-to-hand combat with other similarly equipped men. The pikemens armour consisted of a brimmed pot, a gorget, a breastplate with tassets and a backplate (see Figure 5). The musketeer wore armour to be protected from cavalry assaults, though this seemed not to have 7
For Show or Safety?
been always the case, and was in the second half of the seventeenth century more an exception than a rule. If any armour were worn, then it would only be a pot with often a triple-bar face defence, a breast- and backplate fitted with a high neck and worn without a gorget. Protection of the arms by pauldrons, vambraces and gauntlets appear to have become redundant at least for the infantry in the seventeenth century.
Figure 5: Armour for a pikeman (left) and for a harquebusier/musketeer The cavalry was equipped with a sword and one or two pistols in holsters that were attached to the saddle and they generally had more armour than the infantry. A harquebusier, light cavalry with a carbine, a short musket, wore a pot, a back- and breastplate and left gauntlet over a leather buff coat. The heavy cavalry, armoured cuirassiers firing pistols or carbines, usually had a close helm instead of a pot and cuisses that came down to the knee to protect the complete upper leg (see Figure 4). Pauldrons, vambraces and gauntlets seem to have been worn by the cavalry after the infantry had disposed of them. The breast- and backplates of the cavalry were commonly of thicker, and thus heavier, quality, because the horse did part of the carrying. The cuirass of Prince Maurice of Orange (1567-1625) that was made in 1590 in the Netherlands is considered to be the prototype of the cuirass for cavalry in the seventeenth century from the North-Netherlands. The artillerymen operated the guns on the battlefield and generally wore no armour or helmet, because the range of the guns was much greater than that of muskets, and it would encumber them in their movements. After some volleys or direct shots had been made and the battle had proceeded to hand-to-hand combat, the artillery would retreat.
For Show or Safety?
2.4 Production of armour

Armour is made from iron, a material that is malleable enough to be formed into the various necessary parts. The iron came either from a bloomery hearth or from a finery. In a bloomery iron ore is reduced to iron by heating it together with charcoal at a temperature of about 1200 C. The iron, which has a melting temperature of 1540 C, does not melt and has a very low carbon content. In a finery, cast iron, a brittle form of iron with more than 2 wt% of carbon and a melting temperature of 1150 C, is decarburised by re-melting in an oxidising atmosphere. The wrought iron obtained in either way is essentially the same; it is pure iron with low concentrations of other elements, and contains a certain amount of slag. This slag is produced during the iron making process from impurities in the ore and from the furnace lining itself. The finery process was cheaper and gradually replaced the bloomery hearth in the sixteenth century, although bloomeries were still used on a semi industrial scale until the 20th century. It is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish metallurgically between wrought iron from the bloomery hearth or the finery, i.e. their microstructures are very similar. Wrought iron is relatively soft, but can be hardened by adding a small amount of carbon, preferably around 0.8 wt%, to make steel. More commonly a carbon percentage between 0.2 and 0.8 is found in surviving specimens of 15th to 17th century armour. The difficulty is to get the carbon distributed evenly throughout the wrought iron. There are several methods to increase the carbon content in a piece of iron: Case-carburisation. A piece of iron; a bar, plate or even the finished object, would be wrapped in charcoal or some organic material and heated red-hot (between 900 and 1000 C) for a long time. The carbon diffuses into the iron, but the process results in a greater concentration of carbon at the surface than in the centre. This process was described by Theophilus in the 12th century [Theophilus, 1963]. This method is very suitable to harden the edges of files, knives and swords, but it is less suitable to be used when making armour, and is therefore seldom found therein. Leaving the bloom longer in the bloomery hearth means that it will spend more time in contact with CO gas, thus absorbing some carbon. Again, this leads to a greater concentration of carbon at the surface of the bloom than in the centre. Partial decarburisation of cast iron. This was a common practise, but it is very difficult to stop the fining process at just the right time, so a good knowledge of what was going on was necessary. Pieces of solid wrought iron could also be put into a pool of liquid cast iron, thus lowering the carbon content. With this process there will be no clear gradient in carbon content. Most of these methods yield very heterogeneous steel, but by folding and forging the material one or more times the carbon content would become more homogeneous. This folding can be seen in the microstructure in the form of bands of different carbon content. Steel itself can be hardened by heating it up to 900C and then quenching it in water (full quench) or oil (slack quench) and has been done since the early fifteenth century. After a full quench the steel can be too hard and also very brittle. In this case tempering is desired. Re-heating the material to a moderate temperature for a specific time will result in a softer, but tougher, material. Iron, which contains no carbon, cannot be hardened. The effectiveness of hardening and tempering depends not only on the skill of the armourer, but also very much on the actual carbon content. In the fifteenth and sixteenth century most armours were made of some sort of steel, with some attempts at hardening, whereas in 9
For Show or Safety?
the seventeenth century, possibly because of the larger demand, which reduced the time an armourer had to make armour, most armours were made of pure iron or very low grade steel with up to 0.2% carbon. It is easier to work with iron or very low carbon steel than with high grade steel which has to be hardened and tempered to optimise the performance. Once a lump of iron had been obtained it was flattened to a certain thickness by water-powered hammers. Flattening the plate by hand was possible, but very hard work, and using water-powered hammers for flattening was preferred. From the flattened iron the various pieces of armour were made by cutting the pattern out of the plate and hammering it with various hammers on differently shaped stakes or anvils until the desired shape was obtained. Hammering the plate gives a breastplate a rough surface, with many small dents from the hammer impacts. This appearance, rough from the hammer, seems to have been the final result for the cheaper breastplates, the more expensive suits of armour would undergo smoothing out of these dents (planishing) and final polishing. A possible advantage of leaving the breastplate rough from the hammer is that by hammering the plate, cold work has been put into the material, thus hardening the top layers. Planishing could have cold hardened the material a bit more, but polishing will warm up the surface and remove some of the effects of cold work. It has been found that on most breastplates the middle region is thicker than the parts on the wearers sides, which could mean that the starting plate was of inhomogeneous thickness, or that a second, smaller, plate was forged together with the complete breastplate, to get locally more thickness. In this case a duplex breastplate was made, which consists of two (or more) layers of iron plates of sometimes variable composition. This was done to give the wearer more protection to his vital parts. Also riveting of two breastplates together to improve the quality was done. There is no typical thickness for amour plate in general, the armourer made the armour with a purpose, and depending on that purpose, whether it should be able to withstand bullets or not, the thickness was made high or low. Nevertheless, there seems to have been an average thickness that is constant through time, which corresponds to a comfortable weight for a back- and breastplate. This thickness lies between 1.5 and 3 mm. Apart from that, there is a rise in maximum thickness starting in the late fifteenth century at 3 mm to 6 or 7 mm in the mid seventeenth century [Williams, 2003]. A thickness of 7 mm would imply an uncomfortable weight to carry along in battle, but the protection would have been better, and some men might have preferred protection above comfort. This thicker armour was supposed to be bullet-proof, or at least pistol proof. For a foot-soldier the extra weight would be cumbersome, so most armour that is too thick for comfort would have been worn by horsemen. The quick increase in maximum thickness of the armour plates can also, aside from needing better protection, be explained by the rise in demand of breastplates in the seventeenth century. There were on average 20,000 soldiers in an army, many of them needed a breastplate. To meet this demand, the quality of the breastplates was decreased, so the production speed would increase. Because wrought iron is more malleable than steel, the production would speed up if the steel is replaced with (pure) iron to make armour. A concession that had to be made here is that an iron breastplate has to be thicker than a steel one in order to give the same amount of protection. Also, and more importantly, steel was much more expensive than wrought iron, and if a whole army has to be equipped with armour for a limited amount of money, using cheap iron is also a logical thing to do. The knowledge of making good quality steel breastplates as can be found in examples from the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century was not lost immediately, but put aside to be able to produce affordable armour for the large armies.
10
For Show or Safety?
Figure 6: Weaponsmith in the seventeenth century (painting by Gabriel Metsu, 1629-1667)
2.5 Testing of armour

After breastplates were roughly finished, and before decoration like etching, gilding and polishing, they were tested. The testing of armour plate had been regularly done since the late 14th century. The plates were tested with an arrow from a longbow or a thrown spear but more commonly with a bolt from a crossbow, either hand-spanned or windlass-spanned, the latter being more powerful. In the late 16th and the 17th century testing with firearms was introduced, because gradually muskets had replaced the longbows and crossbows on the battlefield. Also the ratio of firearms to pikes increased greatly, with in the end more firearms than pikes present. The Archduke Maximilian II is recorded as testing his armour with two pistol and harquebus shots in 1561. Armour that was proof against the far more powerful firearms thus eventually grew thicker and uncomfortably heavy as a result. The dent that was left in the armour by the test showed that the armour was of proof. In most dented armours that are on display in museums the dent is caused by this test of proof, and is not result of battle. Also the armour of Prince Maurice of Orange has a dent of proof (see Figure 4). Not all armours were tested in such way, possibly because the dent of proof was not a pretty sight in highly decorated armour, or that the makers could not be bothered because it was not required in all armouries and they would not be fined if they did not test their products. 11
For Show or Safety?
2.6 Modern research on armour

In this paragraph some relevant results of tests on armour before 2004 are listed. All other research on armour is largely done on material from the sixteenth century or before, but the methods of testing are comparable to what is described below.
2.6.1 Microstructure and Composition

A number of pieces of armour from the first half of the 17th century have been examined by Alan Williams [Williams, 2003]. The microstructures of most of these samples show ferrite with little or no pearlite and some slag. An exception on this rule is one or two samples that have a complete fine pearlitic structure or a martensitic structure (with some ferrite). A summary of composition and estimate of carbon content can be found in Appendix A.
2.6.2 Hardness
Some hardness data on armour has been obtained by Alan Williams [Williams, 2003] and by Robert Douglas Smith [R.D. Smith, personal communication, 2005]. A selection of the results on these hardness measurements is put together in Table 1. Williams has measured a few locations on the pieces of armour and took the average, which is listed together with minimum and maximum values. Smith has measured on 20 to 30 locations spread over the breastplate and took minimum value, maximum value, range, mean and standard deviation. Table 1: Hardness in HV of some pieces of armour Date Sample Mean Min Max c. 1610 Breastplate 225 158 375 c. 1625 Breastplate 282 202 490 c. 1625 Backplate 272 166 430 c. 1630 Breastplate 244 201 289 c. 1630 Breastplate 190 186 310 c. 1630 Breastplate 187 109 310 c. 1630 Breastplate 141 98 280 c. 1640 Breastplate 210 130 285 c. 1640 Backplate 182 154 224 RA = Royal Armouries, Leeds HJR = Hofjagd- und Rstkammer, Vienna WA = Wawel Armoury, Poland Origin RA RA RA HJR WA WA WA RA RA Source Smith Smith Smith Williams Williams Williams Williams Smith Smith Remark
p. p. p. p.
450, 713, 713, 713,
microhardness hussars (A) hussars (B) hussars (C)
2.6.3 Thickness
Data on armour thickness has been obtained by Alan Williams [Williams, 2003]; the mean value of four measurements on the breastplates, and by Robert Douglas Smith [R.D. Smith, personal communication, 2005]; in a mesh with squares of 2 by 2 cm laid over the armour the thickness was measured in the centre points of those squares. Minimum, maximum, range, mean and standard deviation are listed afterwards. Parts of fifteenth to seventeenth century armour have been measured, and in Table 2 a selection of seventeenth century data is listed.
12
For Show or Safety?
Table 2: Thickness values in mm of several pieces of armour Date Sample Mean Min Max c. 1610 Breastplate 2.2 0.9 3.6 c. 1615 Breastplate 1.9 c. 1615 Breastplate 2.4 c. 1615 Breastplate 2.5 c. 1615 Breastplate 2.8 c. 1620 Breastplate 3.3 c. 1625 Breastplate 1.6 0.8 2.9 c. 1625 Backplate 1.4 0.9 2.2 c. 1635 Breastplate 5.2 c. 1635 Breastplate 5.7 c. 1635 Breastplate 4.8 c. 1640 Breastplate 1.2 0.7 2.1 c. 1640 Backplate 1.3 0.6 2.4 c. 1650 Breastplate 1.8 0.7 3.9 c. 1650 Breastplate 1.7 0.7 3.9 c. 1682 Breastplate 4.5 c. 1685 Breastplate 4.3 RA = Royal Armouries, Leeds Graz = Landeszeughaus, Graz HJR = Hofjagd- und Rstkammer, Vienna Origin RA Graz Graz Graz Graz HJR RA RA Graz Graz Graz RA RA RA RA Graz Graz Source Smith Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Smith Smith Williams Williams Williams Smith Smith Smith Smith Williams Williams Remark Infantry Infantry Infantry Infantry Horseman Horseman Horseman Horseman
Horseman Horseman
2.6.4 Tensile testing

Mechanical properties of original material have not been determined in great detail, only tensile testing of two historic samples is known. This was performed by Williams [Williams, 2003], on an Italian vambrace of c. 1570, a pearlitic steel, hardness 183 HV, and an Innsbruck pauldron plate of c. 1550, a tempered martensite with 0.5% C and a hardness of 514 HV. The yield strength of the vambrace is 107 N/mm2, the ultimate tensile strength 426 N/mm2 and the elongation at fracture is 40%. For the pauldron these values are 132 N/mm2, 513 N/mm2 and 19% respectively.
2.6.5 Test firing 17th century weapons

Because armour of the seventeenth century is considered antique and museums are not likely to approve of destructive testing of their exhibits, it is not possible to test those specimens with real bullets. For this reason all previous impact testing was largely done on modern mild steel or Victorian wrought iron (puddled iron), with simulated guns and ammunition, or with longbows and bodkin arrows. With these tests the energy of the missile was calculated and the result (penetration or not) was recorded. There is one known example where an original breastplate has been tested on ballistic performance. The experiment was carried out at the Landeszeughaus in Graz in 1989 as a secondary test during research on performance of 16th to 18th century weapons. For the experiment a 1620 wheellock pistol (used by cavalry) and a 1570 breastplate were used. The test was performed under the following conditions. The breastplate was strapped to a sandbag with two layers of fabric (linen) in between. Just left to the middle of the breastplate an old dent was present, presumably from the test of proof in the sixteenth century. The thickness of the breastplate is 2.8 - 3 mm. The pistol was positioned at 8.5 m distance from the breastplate, a realistic distance given the fighting tactics of the cavalry in that period. The muzzle velocity was 444 m/s, the speed on impact 436 m/s. The bullet pierced the breastplate, but had no energy left to penetrate the sandbag. The heavily deformed bullet was found in 13
For Show or Safety?
between the layers of fabric between the breastplate and the sandbag. The wearer would probably have survived this shot at this range, but at shorter ranges and with muskets shooting at it, the breastplate would not offer enough protection [Krenn 1989]. The mode of fracture of the breastplate is a form of petalling, common for thinner plates.
Figure 7: Experiment in Graz, 1989, before (left) and after shooting
2.7 Importance of destructive testing

As discussed above, some properties like hardness, thickness and microstructure of 17th century armour have been determined for a respectable number of specimens. Also a number of weapons from that period were tested on performance. Thus, the properties of both weapon and armour have been studied. A missing link in historical weapon research, however, concerns the combination of both datasets. At present, the performance of historical breastplate versus historical weapon is not well understood. It is known that 17th century armourers tested their breastplates. An occasional dent in a breastplate is the only evidence for these tests, all other parameters of quality control are unknown. The Graz experiment, described above, made an attempt to combine the knowledge on weapons and breastplates. The experiment involved a single shot with a historical gun on an original breastplate. However, no other properties like hardness and microstructure of the armour have been examined in that case. Based on these scarce data it is not possible to establish a general prediction model on the protective quality of 17th century armour. This research involves multiple test shots on two pieces of armour at locations of variable thickness. Other material aspects such as composition, microstructure, hardness and tensile strength have also been determined. With these results the aim is a model that links the material properties of armour to the properties of the weapon. This model will predict the performance of breastplates against bullet impacts using material properties that can be obtained non-destructively, most notably hardness and thickness and in a lesser degree the microstructure. Such a model is of great interest from a historical point of view and should also help to avoid destructive testing of original material in the future.
14
For Show or Safety?
3 Analytical techniques and sample preparation

In this chapter the analytical techniques are discussed. Because the sampling of the breastplates may be confusing, first a description of the sampling is made, followed by the description of all techniques used to determine the properties of the breastplate. After that attention is paid to the analysis of original lead bullets and making replicas. Finally a description of the procedure of the ballistic testing is given.
3.1 Sampling of the breastplates

For microstructure analysis and determination of chemical composition, samples from three similar locations on both breastplates were taken. Because ballistic testing still had to be done on undamaged material, only samples from the rims could be taken. The samples were cut out with a bandsaw; see Figure 8 for locations A, B and C on BP1 (left) and BP2. One part of each sample was set aside for chemical analysis, while the other was cut in two to get cross-sections in the horizontal and the vertical planes of the breastplate. In Appendix B the further embedding and cutting up of these samples is illustrated.
Figure 8: Sample locations for chemical and microstructure analysis In Figure 9 the impact locations of the ballistic testing are illustrated on each breastplate, a grey circle with a letter in it indicates the impact. After ballistic testing was done, rods for tensile testing were taken out; the locations of these rods are indicated by a dotted rectangle with a number in it. Three rods were taken out of BP1; when looking at the front of the breastplate one in the x and one in the y direction and one at an angle of about 45 degrees to the x,y direction. Four test rods were taken out of BP2, in x; y; x,y and -x,y direction (the last two at an angle of about 45 degrees). The cutting was done with a bandsaw, and the final shape of the test rod was milled so all samples would have the same dimensions. The widths w of the test rods were 7.8 mm over a length of 20 mm. The width outside this area was about 25 mm. The thickness of the rods varied between the three samples of BP1, rod 1 has a thickness t of 3.0 mm, rod 2 of 4.0 mm and rod 3 of 3.3 mm. Because the stress is the force per square millimetre, this factor wont influence the results. In Figure 10 the shape and dimension of the test rods can be found. Additional samples for microstructure 15
For Show or Safety?
analysis were taken from internal locations, BP1-I and BP2-I in the x and the y direction. The cross-section of the right half of BP1 is indicated by cs1, cs2 and cs3, the microstructure of the top side is examined.
Figure 9: Sample locations for microstructure analysis, tensile testing and impact locations of ballistic testing
Figure 10: Test rod dimensions in mm for tensile testing
3.2 Breastplates 3.2.1 Composition

The chemical analysis of the specimens was performed at the R&D department of Corus in IJmuiden. The sample preparation started with removing the oxide layer. After the oxide layer had been removed, the samples were cut up into small pieces with a rotary cultivator. The elements carbon and sulphur were analysed in the C/S analyser, in which some milled material is heated together with additional components up to approximately 2000 C. In this process C and S burn up and form CO2 and SO2 respectively. Both gases are detected with an infrared cell. The machinery is calibrated with certificated reference material. 16
For Show or Safety?
The standard elements that are measured with Induction Coupled Plasma (ICP) analysis are Si, P, Cr, Mn, Ni, Cu, Mo, Sn, Nb, Ti and V. Some milled material was dissolved in acid in the robotically operated system AMIA. All operations, such as weighing and conveying, are performed by a robot. Heating was done in an open microwave system; a gravimetric dispenser added the reagents based on weight. The solution was measured by ICP analysis, where the solution is vaporised in an argon plasma. The atoms reach an agitated state, when they fall back to their normal state, they send out light with an element specific wavelength. The amount of light tells how high or low the concentration of the element is in the solution. In addition to these standard elements, the elements As, Ba, Pb, Sb, Co, Cd and Sb were measured semi quantitatively. The solution obtained before was put into ICP again, but now a complete scan was made for every element to see whether any are detectable. As, Co, Pb and Sb were detectably present in the solution, but not in very large amounts. To see whether the composition changes over the thickness of the crosssection of BP1, a scan with an Electron Probe X-ray Micro-Analysis (EPMA) was made. This scan can locally indicate the composition; so if one element is only present in the slag or one specific area, this will become clear. The measurement was performed with a JEOL JXA 8900R microprobe using an electron beam with energy of 15 keV and a current of 150 nA. The composition at each analysis location of the sample was determined using the X-ray intensities of the constituent elements Fe, Mn, Si and P after background correction relative to the corresponding intensities of reference materials. A line measurement over the total thickness of the sample was made, with measuring steps of 50 m; the total length of the line was 6.7 mm.
3.2.2 Microstructure
The samples for microstructure analysis were embedded using a Struers Labo Press-3 where the embedding material was heated to a temperature of 180 C for 10 minutes after which it was water-cooled to harden. This temperature is too low for phase transformations to occur in steel. The sample from the crosssection on BP1 was too large for this machine. It was cut in three pieces and each piece was embedded in a green transparent cold curing resin (Technovit 4071). The embedded specimens were polished and before etching with 2% Nital they were examined with a microscope to determine the slag content. Some photographs of various locations on the samples at different magnification were taken at Corus, IJmuiden, where the chemical analysis was also performed. Based on the microstructure, the more interesting samples were examined with a SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope; LEO 438VP), and local composition was determined with EDS (Energy Dispersive Spectrometry; EDAX LEO 435VP).
3.2.3 Hardness
The bulk hardness was measured with a Rockwell hardness tester. With this system, a hardness number is determined by the difference in depth of penetration resulting from the application of an initial minor load followed by a larger major load; utilization of a minor load enhances test accuracy. For Rockwell B hardness the minor load is 10 kg, the major load is 100 kg. The indenter is a 1/16 spherical and hardened steel ball. The microhardness was measured with a Buehler Omnimet MHT Vickers microhardness tester with accompanying software. The applied weight for measuring the microhardness was 500 g.
17
For Show or Safety?
3.2.4 Thickness
The thickness of the breastplates was determined by a 3D scan. This scan was made at TNO in Eindhoven, with a Hyscan 45C scanner. The surface of the breastplate should not be too dark (too little reflection for the laser) or to light (shining surface, too much scattering of light). This distorts the measuring. An opaque grey coating can be applied to the surface in order to be able to scan it properly. This had to be done to the inside of BP2. The coating can be removed after scanning. The laser scanner registers up to 10,000 points per second, with a measuring area of 50 x 50 mm2. The scanner is positioned in a Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) of type Zeiss, UMC 550 S. The whole surface of the breastplate is scanned with a laser and a CCD camera with a known angle to the laser bundle determines the position of a point on the surface. The highest light intensity comes from a point at a straight angle with the laser, when the surface is curved the laser dot becomes oval and less intense. A computer registers the obtained data and with software from Innovmetric a picture is made. IM-Align connects all the measured dots in a matrix of 0.3 mm and aligns them to form one smooth surface. With IM-Merge the dots are connected to each other with triangles. IM-Edit is used to smooth everything out, so holes (where the surface had too much or too little reflection to give proper data) are closed. Finally with IM-Inspect the two models (of inside and outside) are compared to make the difference visible, which results in a thickness profile. The accuracy of the thickness lies within a 0.1 mm range. With the same techniques a second scan after ballistic testing was made to see how much the material has deformed. The scans from the outer surface before and after shooting are compared with IM-Inspect, so a deviation from the original position is obtained. Also a thickness profile is made of a few impact locations, to find out the reduction in thickness due to the bullet impact.

For tensile testing it is necessary to specify the dimensions of the test specimens in order to know the right area the force acts on during testing. This way the test results can be compared with test results of tests on other (modern) material. Test rods were taken out of the breastplates in various directions, see Figure 8 for the locations. The specimens were tested in a Zwick Z010 test machine, which can deliver a maximum force of 10 kN. The specimens of BP1 were not entirely straight after cutting and milling, so with a vice the test rods were straightened gently, so not too much deformation would occur in the region that would undergo the test. Due to the fact that the specimens were not completely straightened, some slip occurred during testing. Samples BP2-1 and BP2-2 were tested with a strain gauge, but slip occurred in the gauge and no strain data were obtained. After removal of the strain gauge the machine itself measured the strain. These results led to the decision that the strain gauge was to be omitted for the remainder of the tests. The test speed was 30 N/mm2s, with a pre-load of 10 N. The maximum stress in N/mm2 was measured along with the strain at that point. The yield strength, defined as the point at which 0.2% permanent elongation is experienced by the material, is calculated by the machine, and compared with values from literature for several kinds of iron and steel. The elongation at fracture is also determined; to see how much strain the material can have before failure.
18
For Show or Safety?
3.2.6 Neutron diffraction

At the ISIS facility, at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford, England, the breastplates were measured with the ROTAX time-of-flight diffractometer and General Materials Diffractometer (GEM) instruments. The obtained diffraction pattern indicates the phases and corrosion products present and is obtained in a non-destructive way. During neutron diffraction the scattered neutron waves show interference producing diffraction peaks at characteristic 2 scattering angles between incoming and outgoing beam. Braggs law states that diffraction can be regarded as reflection of neutrons by crystal lattice planes:
2 dhkl sin =
(1)
In Braggs law is d hkl the spacing between lattice planes hkl, 2 is the scattering angle and is the wavelength. In the resulting diffractogram the d-spacing is plotted against the normalised neutron counts. With X-Ray diffraction similar results are obtained, but only information of the top layer of 10-20 m of the sample is generated. Neutron diffraction gives information of the bulk of the sample, but the results are averaged, so it is not exactly known where the different phases can be found in the thickness of the sample if the diffraction pattern shows irregularities. In the ROTAX instrument a time-of-flight neutron diffraction (TOF-ND) pattern is determined. Neutrons produced by shooting high energetic protons from a synchrotron to a target station are slowed down to thermal energies before they travel to the sample position at 15 meters from the moderator (or 17 meters in GEM). About 1 million neutrons per second hit the sample with wavelengths between 0.5 and 5 , corresponding to neutron velocities from about 8000 to 800 m/s. The beam size can range from 5x5 up to 20x40 mm2. In this experiment a 10x10 mm2 beam size was used, to ensure a large enough surface to be measured, but not too large so that the measurement is not performed at both dent and undamaged material. Neutrons, diffracted in the sample, are recorded by three neutron detector banks that measure both the 2 angles and the flight times. The three detector banks are positioned at a scatter angle of 30 (low angle), 70 (forward scattering) and 125 (backscattering). Time-of-flight spectra are usually normalised to the incident number of neutrons per neutron wavelength. This is necessary in order to evaluate scattered neutrons of different neutron velocities or wavelengths, but the normalisation also allows to directly compare data sets of different measuring times.
Sample
Figure 11: Schematic view of the ROTAX instrument
19
For Show or Safety?
TOF-ND determines the flight time (t ) of a neutron travelling from target to detector. With the flight path (L) known, one obtains the velocity
mn 2 L h and the wavelength = . For a detector at = ; the energy E = 2 t 2mn E

a fixed 2 angle, the d-spacing is derived from Braggs law (Equation (1)). In the equations above h is the Planck constant and mn is the neutron mass.
Figure 12: Locations on the breastplates that have been scanned by ROTAX (grey circles are bullet impacts of ballistic testing) For reference and comparison with GEM results, first the small sample from location BP1A was measured in the ROTAX sample tank under vacuum. After removal of the tank a measurement of the air (so without sample) was done, which yielded practically no background scattering. The sample was also measured in the ambient air. To locate the region where the neutrons are scattered on the breastplates a position marker was created that determined the height of the location, and with an extendable pointer the centre before the beam exit. Each location on the breastplates was put in the ROTAX during half an hour, with one exception, location 0 on BP1, see Figure 12, was measured overnight, for about 10 hours. Longer measurement will make peaks of less strong scattering phases more clear due to better background statistics. On BP1 in total eight locations and on BP2 in total three locations were measured. The GEM is a high intensity, high resolution neutron diffractometer equipped with 6 detector banks housing a total of about 6500 detector elements that cover a very wide range in scattering angle from 1.1 to 169.3. These detectors are all around the sample tank, so it is not necessary to rotate the sample to get the texture analysis in the form of pole figures. Texture analysis determines the distribution of crystallographic orientations with respect to the sample shape. The sample is considered to be inside an imaginary orientation sphere, the pole sphere. The orientation of crystallites is represented by crystal planes and their poles; the directions perpendicular to the crystal planes. The pole figure is the two dimensional representation of the pole sphere. In GEM analysis enough data is assembled in one run to create the pole figures and a 20
For Show or Safety?
diffraction pattern of the sample. The texture of a polycrystalline material may result from plastic deformations, specific mechanical working processes or thermal treatments (e.g. triggering recrystallisation) during manufacturing. Many working processes (casting, rolling, hammering, heating) cause distinct grain orientation distributions. If all crystallite orientations are equally realised corresponding to a random distribution of poles in the pole figure, then the material is said to be texture-free. Because the GEM sample tank limits the size of the object to be measured, for a good result some small pieces of the breastplate were cut off (location BP1A, BP1C and BP2A). The sample tank is necessary to provide vacuum for measuring certain samples and it also protects the detector elements. The samples are positioned perpendicular to the incoming neutron beam; the long side of the fragments are along the vertical. In Figure 13 the samples and the incoming neutron beam are schematically depicted. The pole figures that depict the texture in the material are calculated with the MAUD (Materials Analysis using Diffraction) computer program. Each single pole figure represents the orientation distribution of a specific lattice plane, e.g. (200), with respect to the sample body. Each particular point in a pole figure denotes a specific direction in the sample. The centre of the pole figure corresponds to the direction perpendicular to the sample surface. Preferred alignments of lattice planes show up as maxima. Different colour shadings refer to different pole densities given as multiples of the random distribution (mrd). Pole figures are normalised with mrd = 1 marking the average distribution. The maximum mrd-values indicate the texture strength. The pole strength and symmetry of a pole figure reflects the deformation strength and symmetry of a working or deformation process. For example, rotation-symmetric pole densities indicate a single working direction, e.g. the hammering direction.
Figure 13: Sample orientation in GEM analysis After analysis on the three small samples, both breastplates were put in the GEM sample tank, but only one location in the middle of each plate could be measured, because there was no room for moving the breastplate in order to measure different locations. Moving the breastplates around was possible at the ROTAX instrument, where the tank could be removed, for it is not necessary to 21
For Show or Safety?
measure iron in vacuum, because it gives strong Bragg peaks, and is not distorted by scattering of air. For the phase analysis with the program GSAS (Generalised Structure and Analysis Software) the detector elements of each of the six GEM banks were combined to give six diffraction patterns for each scan. Likewise, each ROTAX acquisition yielded three separate diffraction patterns. The observed patterns were analysed according to the Rietveld method [Young 1993] that is based on an iterative fitting process used to model the measured diffraction patterns in terms of the crystal structures of identified mineral or metal phases. The Rietveld method imposes strong constraints in terms of the crystal structure models. Mineral and metal phase have to be identified first and then implemented in the model set of Rietveld, here realised with GSAS. The crystal structure models used in the Rietveld analysis are listed in Appendix C. The structure models were taken from databases ICSD and CrystMet. Structure parameters were kept fixed for the calculations, apart from the lattice parameters of cementite, for allowing a slight adjustment of the database parameters. The lattice parameters of Fe were kept fixed, and used as internal standard for correction of misalignment of the sample position on the GEM and ROTAX samples positions.
3.2 Bullets 3.2.1 Composition

To determine the composition of the original seventeenth century lead bullets EDS (Energy Dispersive Spectrometry) was applied at a few locations, but this is not a quantitative approach. The results from EDS analysis are not reliable, so the two half bullets were put in a Philips PW1480 XRF (X-Ray Fluorescence) apparatus. The results were processed with the semi quantitative software program UniQuant5.
3.2.2 Casting
The lead bullets used for ballistic testing were cast in a soapstone mould at Archeon, Alphen a/d Rijn. The lead was molten in a ladle that was put on a charcoal fire. The rim on the bullet where the mould closed was polished smooth on a polishing machine. The diameter of the bullets is 15.5 mm 0.5 mm, the average weight is 21.19 g with a standard deviation of 0.12 g.
Figure 14: Original seventeenth century bullet mould (left) and the replica used to cast the bullets for ballistic testing
22
For Show or Safety?
3.2.3 Compression Test

Two cast bullets were tested in compression, to find out how much energy is needed to deform the bullet. The compression test was performed at the Zwick Z010 test machine, with a compression rate of 5.210-3 s-1. Lead has a slow recrystallisation rate at room temperature, and the way of deformation at high impact speed, where a temperature rise is likely, is different from that at the low testing speed, but this test should give an indication whether the amount of energy that is used to deform the bullet is significant with respect to the total amount of energy available to perforate the breastplate.
3.3 Ballistic testing

The ballistic testing was performed at the Prins Maurits Laboratory of TNO in Ypenburg. The experiments were done in a small bunker, suitable for low calibre weapons. A 16 mm barrel was positioned with the barrel mouth at 2.7 m distance of the target rack on which the breastplates would be set. Between barrel and target a small tunnel was set up through which the bullet passes in order to measure the speed of the bullet. With a Radar-Doppler system the speed of the bullet was also measured. At the back of the barrel there is space for the powder chamber which is inserted after a definite amount of gunpowder is put in there. To make sure no powder falls out, two small round cartons are put in the powder chamber to confine the powder in the back of the chamber, next to the detonation point. The bullet is inserted through the mouth of the barrel. At first three pieces of carton of exactly 16 mm diameter were put in the barrel to ensure an evenly distributed pressure build-up, because the self-cast bullets were not perfect spheres. For the last three shots the cartons were omitted, because the shooting went quite well and the footage with the high-speed camera would thus not be distorted with bits and pieces of carton flying past. The powder is electrically detonated from outside the test chamber, for safety reasons. The type of powder that is used is N150, a single base (NC) propellant, Nitrocellulose 90-98% in extruded cylindrical grains. This is a powder that has a moderately slow burning rate. The breastplates were positioned in such way that the impact of the bullet would always be at a right angle or as close as possible to that. They were fastened with tension cords to the target rack, with some cotton bales and pieces of wood to keep everything in place. In total twelve shots were fired at the two breastplates, seven of these shots were filmed with a high-speed camera. See Figure 8 for the locations of the bullet impacts.
Figure 15: Experimental setup at PML for ballistic testing
23
For Show or Safety?
4 Results
4.1 Breastplates 4.1.1 Composition
At R&D of Corus in IJmuiden the composition of the six samples was determined with a C/S analyser and with Induction Coupled Plasma (ICP) analysis. The results are in Table 3, with the more important elements in bold script. Table 3: Results of chemical analysis with elements in weight % C Si P Cr Mn Ni Cu Mo Sn Nb Ti V S As Ba Cd Co Pb Sb total BP1-A 0.147 0.012 0.012 0.004 0.072 0.010 0.007 0.002 0.002 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.006 <0.001 <0.001 0.007 0.004 0.002 0.29 BP1-B 0.015 0.013 0.009 0.004 0.073 0.019 0.011 0.003 0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.006 <0.001 <0.001 0.013 0.004 0.002 0.18 BP1-C 0.012 0.018 0.021 <0.001 0.030 0.020 0.010 0.004 0.002 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.011 <0.001 <0.001 0.016 0.005 0.002 0.15 BP2-A 0.030 <0.001 0.007 0.012 0.311 0.026 0.050 0.007 0.003 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.025 0.008 <0.001 <0.001 0.005 0.004 0.002 0.49 BP2-B 0.029 <0.001 0.007 0.012 0.312 0.026 0.051 0.007 0.003 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.025 0.008 <0.001 <0.001 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.49 BP2-C 0.031 <0.001 0.007 0.012 0.313 0.027 0.050 0.007 0.003 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.024 0.008 <0.001 <0.001 0.005 0.005 0.002 0.49
The carbon content of all samples but 1A, which has 0.15% C, is too low to call the material steel; the breastplates are made of some form of wrought iron. The total amount of alloying elements is also too low to be able to speak of conscious or effective alloying. Only in BP2 there is about 0.3% of manganese present, which is with respect to composition the only major difference between BP1 and BP2. Manganese is not generally present in medieval and renaissance steels [Williams, 2003]. The EPMA results on phosphorous and manganese in the cross-section of BP1 do not yield a distinct concentration profile, the concentrations are too low to get a significant difference. Silicon was not present in any of the points along the line scan. The graph with concentrations of P and Mn can be found in Appendix D.
4.1.2 Microstructure
The slag content of the unetched samples as determined with an image analysing computer programme is different for both breastplates. For BP1 it varies between 0.5 and 2 %, with locally slag contents of over 5%, whereas for BP2 the slag content is much lower, between 0.2 and 0.5 %. For wrought iron a slag content between 2 and 3 % is not uncommon. The distribution of the slag in the various specimens of BP1 is very inhomogeneous. It consists of layers of 24
For Show or Safety?
inclusions at various locations with respect to the thickness. For samples BP1A-C and BP1-Ix one or two thin layers are visible, but BP1-Iy almost has no slag. The cross-section of BP1 (cs1-cs3) shows a concentrated amount of slag layers on the front side of the breastplate and a few thin layers in the middle of the structure (Figure 23). BP2 has many small, randomly distributed slag inclusions, slightly elongated parallel to the surface of the plate. The microstructure of the eight samples from BP2 (6 samples BP2A-C, BP2-Ix and BP2-Iy) is very similar; ferritic grains of approximately 30 micrometer size on average. The samples BP1B, BP1C and BP1-I are also similar in appearance, but with very large ferritic grains, some of them about 0.5 mm or more in diameter. Different areas with different grain sizes can be found next to each other, with average grain sizes of 30, 60, 100 and 140 micrometer. In the samples BP1B and BP1C the microstructure changes noticeably around slag layers. For BP1-Ix and BP1-Iy the regions of different microstructure are more random and less clear than in the samples BP1A-C. The cross-section shows also areas of different grain size, but also areas of different composition, with or without a little pearlite. Sample BP1A has more obvious regions with a variable amount of carbon, see Figure 16. On the front of the breastplate the carbon content is highest, and areas of pearlite within Widmansttten ferrite are visible. Near the surface there seems to have been some decarburisation, for only a little or no carbon is present in the outer layer of a few microns. The region following upon the carbon rich area, just after a band of slag inclusions, is pure ferrite which gradually becomes slightly richer in carbon, nearing the second line of slag inclusions. After the second slag line the structure is pure ferrite again, but with very tiny areas (less than 10 m 2) of pearlite. The amount of pearlite in the region near the second line of slag is corresponding to an amount of carbon of up to 0.2 wt%, whereas the pearlitic area near the front of the plate would correspond to a carbon content of about 0.7 wt%. The total amount of carbon in sample 1A is 0.15 wt%. The Widmansttten structure in the carbon rich area arises during cooling down from the austenite phase ( -phase) and is a transformation product of coarse -grains. The coarse austenite excretes ferrite in the shape of needles and plates. Widmansttten structure always arises when the -grain is large and if there is a quick cooling down from a higher temperature. Another feature that is visible in the microstructure of BP1 are twin boundaries, see Figure 19. In the ferrite structure twins form after plastic deformation through a punch load where a part of the grain switches to the twin position. Twins are visible in the microstructure of BP1 as lines in a grain, which stop at the grain boundary. The lines in one grain are parallel to each other, or at a 60-degree angle. The microstructures of samples BP1-Ix and especially BP1-Iy show many twins. This is because the latter sample was taken near a dent from ballistic testing. BP1-Ix also shows more twins than BP1A-C, but less than BP1Iy; this sample was taken further away from a dent, which also had caused less deformation than the dent near BP1-Iy. No twinning is visible in any sample from BP2, but the samples were not taken near a dent. The cross-section of the right side of BP1 shows an interesting structure change. In the samples cs2 and cs3 layers of different structure can be indicated (Figure 21), in cs1 these are less visible. From the front side of the breastplate to the inside at location cs2 a slag rich layer with relatively large grains is seen, followed by a layer of small ferritic grains with small inclusions of pearlite on the grain boundaries. After the layer with some pearlite a layer without pearlite and with variable grain size is seen, concluded by a band of small grains with again some pearlite and an area of relatively large grains and a few bands of slag on the surface on the inside of the breastplate. Looking at the complete cross-section of the right side of BP1 it can be seen that an extra plate was forged on the inside to thicken the centre part. The boundary between the forged plates starts halfway through the cross-section and 25
For Show or Safety?
can be distinguished from the rest of the material by a fine line of pearlite that widens towards the middle, but can be followed throughout the structure, and by some slag inclusions on the boundary close to the beginning of the layer, see the red dotted line in Figure 21. At least one other boundary between layers can be indicated in the cross-section, and this one starts at the outside and continues all the way to the centre. The layer that is more to the front of the breastplate has many slag inclusions and relatively large grains, and the boundary can be found in the area with small grains and with more pearlite and in additional slag layers. The carbon has been introduced to the separate plates before forging while they were heated up in the (charcoal) forge. Upon forging the carbon has locally homogenised through the structure, hence the relatively wide bands of ferrite with small pearlite inclusions. In Figure 23 the layer boundaries are indicated. The indicated lines are based on the local microstructure variations, but are by no means definite, a shift up or down of a few tenths of millimetres is possible. The top line that is only indicated in cs2 and cs3 is based on the region with higher carbon content and a thin line of pearlite within a ferrite structure (see also Figure 21). The lower line that is indicated in all cross-sections is also based in cs2 on the area of heightened carbon content, but also on slag layers, as is indicated in Figure 20. Because the general structure of BP1 is very inhomogeneous, it is very unlikely that these layers are similar throughout the breastplate. The different examined locations already show a lot of variation in structure. However, the general trend of two or three layers will be visible throughout the breastplate, albeit in different ways. In Appendix D more details of various microstructures as well as some SEM photographs can be found.
Figure 16: Microstructure of BP1A 26
For Show or Safety?
Figure 17: Microstructure of BP1B
Figure 18: Microstructure of BP2
27
For Show or Safety?
Figure 19: Twinning in BP1-Iy
Figure 20: Absence of pearlite bands in outer rim of cross-section of BP1 28
For Show or Safety?
Figure 21: Pearlite bands in centre of cross-section of BP1
Figure 22: Pearlite in between ferrite grains
29
For Show or Safety?
Figure 23: Layer boundaries in cross-section of BP1 30
For Show or Safety?
4.1.3 Hardness
The hardness of armour is directly correlated to the composition and/or possible heat treatments. As for the performance of a piece of armour, a higher hardness is desired, but depending on the carbon percentage, not too high, because then it will also be too brittle. The average hardness for pure iron (ferrite) is about 80 HV (hardness on the Vickers scale), for 0.2% carbon steel 180 HV and for 0.6% carbon steel 260 HV. Slag inclusions and fine ferrite crystals may influence the hardness of the material and measured values for ferritic armour may be anywhere between 100 and 180 HV. The three samples from different locations on BP1 and BP2 were analysed with a Rockwell hardness tester for bulk hardness and with a microhardness tester with 500 g indentation weight to obtain the microhardness. The crosssection BP1-cs3 was also measured for microhardness, on six lines from front to back. In general the hardness is slightly higher in regions with smaller and/or deformed grains. The average hardness and minimum and maximum value for each sample is given in Table 4. The actual measured data of microhardness and the corresponding locations are given in Appendix E. Table 4: Hardness in HV of various samples of BP1 and BP2 Sample BP1-A BP1-A BP1-B BP1-B BP1-C BP1-C BP1-cs3 BP2-A BP2-A BP2-B BP2-B BP2-C BP2-C Mean 151 108 103 83 128 92 100 135 99 138 95 117 91 Min 94 99 74 76 91 81 72 113 88 106 89 94 86 Max 236 129 147 90 170 101 140 205 108 176 100 138 100 Remark microhardness from Rockwell B microhardness from Rockwell B microhardness from Rockwell B microhardness microhardness from Rockwell B microhardness from Rockwell B microhardness from Rockwell B
When the data in Table 4 is compared with data from previous research (see Table 1), it is found that the microhardness of both BP1 and BP2 is relatively low, and especially the bulk hardness (converted from Rockwell B hardness) is very low. Only the hussars breastplate (C) measured by Williams is comparable with BP1-A, all other values are much higher. The average hardness of samples after 1625 is about 200 HV, whereas the samples from the beginning of the seventeenth century average 250 HV. The hardness values for BP1 and BP2 are in the same range, between 100 and 150 HV for average, but the minimum values are lower for BP1, this is because the grains in BP1 are much larger than in BP2, as can be seen in the microstructures. The maximum values are again in the same range. The converted bulk hardness is for all samples lower than the microhardness, which is understandable, because the plastic behaviour of the material with hardness testing plays a role. Upon indentation a gradient in plastic strain arises; high plastic strain in the centre of indentation and no plastic strain at a certain distance from the centre. For microhardness measuring this gradient is higher (smaller distance over which strain goes to zero), and thus the hardness is higher. For the same material the nanohardness will even be higher due to this fact. Also, for bulk indentation small pores or slag inclusions may influence the hardness (indentation is larger due to the inhomogeneity of the material, and makes the hardness lower).
31
For Show or Safety?
When the measured microhardness is plotted against the percentage of thickness where it is measured it is possible to see whether specific regions have higher hardness than others, which might indicate that there are layers present of different hardness and thus of either different material or that different heat treatment have been applied. As can be seen in Figure 24, the microhardness of BP1A is slightly higher on the outside of the breastplate, in the carbon-rich area. This was to be expected. Other than that there is too much scattering in the data points to be able to draw a trendline. Only the hardness of BP1B is in general lower than for BP1C or BP1A. For BP2 there is no significant variation in microhardness throughout the thickness. See Appendix E for the graph of microhardness of BP2.
250
200
Hardness (HV)
150
100
50
BP1A BP1B BP1C 20,0 40,0 60,0 80,0 100,0
0 0,0 Distance from backside (%)
Figure 24: Microhardness of BP1 In a similar plot for the microhardness measured on the centre of the crosssection of BP1 a locally heightened hardness is visible corresponding with the pearlitic band in the microstructure. In Figure 25 the hardness is depicted in a graph with the corresponding microstructure below. On the outer rims the hardness is also locally higher, especially on the front side (near 100%).
32
For Show or Safety?
160 140 120

Hardness (HV)
100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance from inside (%)
Figure 25: Microhardness in the centre of BP1
4.1.4 Thickness
The thickness of BP1 fluctuates a lot, the middle part is about 7 mm thick, and the rims are 2 to 3 mm thick. The thicker part in the middle will give the wearer more protection for front-on assaults, the thinning out to the sides will probably have to do with optimising the comfort by limiting the weight while maintaining as much protection as possible. The thickness of BP2 is very constant; it is 1.75 mm on average with a deviation of at most 0.3 mm. In the middle part the breastplate is slightly thinner than on the outsides, opposite to the situation of BP1. The thickness profiles for the breastplates can be found in Figure 26 and Figure 27.
33
For Show or Safety?
Figure 26: 3D scan of BP1 with thickness profile in mm The difference between minimum and maximum values of the thickness measurements indicates how evenly thick a plate is. If the range - the difference between minimum and maximum - is small, that means the plate is very even in thickness. The range for BP1 is very high, 5 mm, and for BP2 very small; 0.6 mm. Also this range is very small when compared with measurements done by Smith, see Table 2, the average range for his data lies between 1.5 and 3 mm, which is at least twice the range on BP2.
34
For Show or Safety?
Figure 27: 3D scan of BP2 with thickness profile in mm

The yield strength of samples BP2-1 and BP2-2 could not reliably be measured due to lack of strain values. The yield strength for BP2-3 and BP2-4 can be determined by looking at what stress level the yield plateau lies. The yield point for the samples of BP1 is less easy to determine, for BP1-3 there is no yield point phenomenon visible. Presumably the real yield point is lower than what the machine has determined, hence the parentheses in Table 5. The maximum stress (or (ultimate) tensile strength) is independent of the strain measurement; slip has no influence on this value. The strain at fracture is determined by measuring the original length and surface of the specimen and those values after fracture. Also the results from tensile testing on two historic samples [Williams, 2003] are in Table 5, and for further comparison some values of low grade steels and ductile irons [Callister, 1997] are listed. The graphs of tensile testing can be found in Appendix F. Because of lack of carbon in most tested samples, and only a possible presence of up to 0.1 wt% C in BP1, a comparison will be made between the ductile irons and the tested specimens. The yield strength of all samples is lower than the given range of ductile irons; also all (ultimate) tensile strengths are much lower than what would be expected of a ductile iron. The presence of slag particles and slag layers could explain this. For BP1 both the yield and tensile strength are lower than for BP2, which is probably caused by the difference in 35
For Show or Safety?
slag distribution, layers in BP1 or small globular inclusions in BP2. The tensile strength of 1020 steel is lower than for the ductile irons, but still higher than the tested specimens. Vb-1570 and Pd-1550 have high tensile strengths, in the range of ductile irons, but the yield strengths are much lower than even the specimens of BP1 and BP2. The strain for all tested samples lies in or above the high region of the ductile irons. This means that the breastplates can take a lot of deformation before fracture, but not much stress is needed to deform the plates. The fractured surfaces for the samples of BP1 show a layered structure on a macroscopic scale. During necking of the rod the individual layers had separate necking just before they gave way one after the other. The level of the fracture surfaces of the different layers is not at the same distance from one end of the sample. Between the layers air pockets are visible that were created just before or during fracture. Table 5: Results from tensile testing Specimen BP1-1 BP1-2 BP1-3 BP2-1 BP2-2 BP2-3 BP2-4 Vb-1570a) Pd-1550b) Ductile irons1) 1020 Steel2) 1040 Steel3) 4140 Steel4)
a) b) 1) 2) 3) 4)
Yield strength N/mm2 210 196 (262) 255 273 107 132 280-370 295 353 417
Tensile strength N/mm2 271 271 266 327 329 320 328 426 513 410-520 395 520 655
Break
% 23.5 31 25 28 27 30 28 40 19 26-18 36.5 30.2 25.7
Italian vambrace of 1570 Innsbruck pauldron of 1550 Grade 60-40-18, annealed Steel alloy 1020, ca. 0.2% C, 0.45% Mn, annealed at 870C Steel alloy 1040, ca. 0.4% C, 0.8% Mn, annealed at 790C Steel alloy 4140, ca. 0,4% C, 1% Cr, 1% Mn, 0.25% Si, 0.2% Mo, annealed at 815C
4.1.6 Neutron diffraction

The neutron diffraction patterns collected on GEM (bank 6) of the centre parts of BP1 and BP2 are dominated by the ferrite phase. Other phases have intensities of at least one order of magnitude smaller and become visible only in the zoomed diffraction patterns (see Figure 28). The small peaks in the BP1 pattern are from cementite, Fe3C. The samples from BP1A and BP1C show different patterns, as can be seen in Figure 29. Fe3C and Fe3O4 are present in BP1A, whilst in BP1C only the oxide Fe3O4 can be found. In the sample from BP2 neither phases are present as clear distinct Bragg peaks, only ferrite is visible. The diffraction patterns obtained by ROTAX of sample locations 2 to 7 on BP1 (see Figure 30, and Figure 12 for the locations) show that Fe3C can be found in pattern 3 to 5, but not in pattern 2. Pattern 6 shows a very distinct peak at the wustite location, FeO, which is not visible in any other pattern. The pearlitic area as found in the microstructure of BP1A apparently stretches towards location 3 on the breastplate.
36
For Show or Safety?
Figure 28: Zoomed diffraction pattern
Figure 29: Difference in diffraction pattern of BP1 and BP2
37
For Show or Safety?
Figure 30: Difference in diffraction pattern of BP1 The results from the Rietveld analysis give the calculated amounts of Fe, FeO, Fe3C and Fe3O4 in wt%. From the values of Fe3C the carbon percentage can be calculated from the weight fraction ratios. Measurements on industrial standards show that this calculation will yield an underestimation of the carbon content. In Table 6 the results of the phase analysis of GEM and ROTAX data are listed. Because the measuring time on ROTAX was too short for the weak peaks of magnetite to show in the diffraction patterns, these values are not available, except for BP1 S0, the location that was measured overnight. The locations BP1 S0 to S7 and BP2 S1 to S3 can be found in Figure 12. Table 6: Phase analysis of GEM and ROTAX data wF wC wO wM GEM BP1A 97.3 2.5 (7) 0 0.2 BP1C 99.1 0 0 0.9 BP1 centre 98.9 1.1 (1) 0 0.0 BP2A 99.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 BP2 centre 99.6 0.2 0.2 0.0 ROTAX BP1 S0 99.2 0.2 (1) 0.6 (4) 0.0 BP1 S1 99.9 0 0.1 BP1 S2 99.7 0.2 (1) 0.1 BP1 S3 98.1 1.9 (1) 0 BP1 S4 98.4 1.6 (1) 0.0 BP1 S5 97.1 2.9 (1) 0.0 BP1 S6 99.0 0.4 (2) 0.6 (1) BP1 S7 99.4 0.4(2) 0.2 (1) BP2 S1 98.7 1.3 0.0 BP2 S2 99.4 0.6 0.0 BP2 S3 98.8 1.2 0.2 wF = w(Fe), wC = w(Fe3C), wO = w(FeO), wM = w(Fe3O4) in wt% Numbers in parentheses are estimated standard deviations 38 %C 0.17 0 0.07 0 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0.13 0.11 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.04 0.08
For Show or Safety?
The texture evaluation of GEM data was performed on the three fragments and on the centre part of BP1. The texture is displayed in terms of pole figures of representative ferrite lattice planes (110), (200) and (211). Figure 32 shows the pole figures of the three fragments and the scan of the centre of BP1. Maximum pole densities are between 1.2 and 1.4, indicating a rather weak texture for the ferrite. The BP1A sample shows rather circular (axisymetric) pole densities. The positions of maxima and minima in (110) and (200) respectively are similar as for BP2. For BP1 there is no distinct unique direction, like a rolling direction, in the texture. The pole figures of the centre part of BP1 and of BP1C are rather irregular. Maxima are distributed at random with respect to the plate shape, with no clear indication of a rolling process. The observed type of texture for the BP2 sample displays the typical features of a rolling texture of bcc iron, see Figure 31 [Wasserman, 1962; Kocks et al. 1998]. Rolling direction is along the vertical, inside the BP2 fragment plane, perpendicular to the incoming beam, and along the short side of the sample of location BP2A. This corresponds to a vertical rolling direction when looking at the breastplate from the front. The rolling texture is characterised by a minimum in the centre of (110) and by two elongated maxima aligned perpendicular to the rolling direction. The (110) pole density maxima are complemented by a maximum in the centre of (200). Typically rolled fcc-metals have a pole density streak in the 220 pole figure representing the (110) crystal plane family.
95% deformation, annealed at 570 C for 50 minutes
95% deformation, annealed at 540 C for 80 minutes
Figure 31: Pole figures of (110) planes of rolled and annealed bcc iron [Wasserman, 1962]
39
For Show or Safety?
BP1A
BP1C
BP1
BP2A Figure 32: Pole figures for BP1 and BP2
40
For Show or Safety?
4.2 Bullets 4.2.1 Composition

The result of the XRF measurement on the original lead bullets confirmed the assumption that they were made of pure lead. No significant amount of tin or antimony is present in either of the bullets. The silicon that was detected with EDS while the bullets were in a SEM was also not in very large amounts present. A summary of elements discussed above and those present in a concentration over 0.1 wt% is given in Table 7. The complete reports can be found in Appendix G. Table 7: Elements present in lead bullets in wt% with standard error Small bullet Large bullet Pb 98.66 0.06 99.18 0.04 Sn 0.399 0.025 Sb 0.042 0.012 Si 0.135 0.015 0.0779 0.0086 Al 0.250 0.027 0.187 0.018 Fe 0.223 0.025 0.0195 0.0048
4.2.2 Compression Test
= 5.2 10 s-1) the amount of energy needed to Under slow compression ( deform the bullet a certain percentage is equivalent to the surface under the
3
force strain diagram;
E=
distance. To deform the bullet 50%, with v = 8 mm, the required energy is 10.7 J. To deform the bullet 60%, with v = 10 mm, the required energy is 62.1 J. These energies are relatively low, and will therefore be neglected when looking at energy loss due to bullet deformation in the discussion of the ballistic testing. The force strain diagram can be found in Appendix F.
Fdv
0
with F the applied force and v the travelled
4.3 Ballistic testing 4.3.1 Test results

The test shots showed that the bullets were suitable for the gun and that sufficiently low speeds could be achieved. Also a general idea about the amount of powder that should be used to get a certain speed for the bullet was obtained. The bullets used at the test shots were not weighed before shooting, therefore the average weight of the cast bullets is taken. The results of all shooting experiments are in Table 8. At BP1 eight bullets were fired, the results of these shots are visible in Figure 33. Two of the bullets perforated the breastplate. At a plate thickness of 6.25 mm a bullet travelling with a speed of 451 m/s was stopped. A speed of 470 m/s was more than enough for the bullet to perforate the breastplate at a location of 5 mm thickness; the material that was torn out of the breastplate was not found again. At one location on BP1 the bullet left a dent with a crack. The crack shows a laminated structure, part of the fracture was parallel to the plate surface. The crack is also very brittle. BP2 had four bullets fired at it, see Figure 34, of which two perforated the breastplate. Perforation of BP2 occurred at a bullet speed of 271 m/s, since the plate thickness was only 1.75 mm.
41
For Show or Safety?
One bullet was shot at an ARMOX 500 plate, which hit with 444 m/s and left a shallow dent comparable with the ones made at 175 or 262 m/s on BP1. In this case perforation or full penetration is achieved when a hole is made in the breastplate, but without enough remaining energy to inflict damage to the wearer himself. At this point the ballistic limit is reached, if more energy is put in the bullet, the wearer would be killed or severely wounded and out of action for the remainder of the battle. Table 8: Results of ballistic testing Mass bullet (g) Test - 1 Test - 2 Test - 3 BP1 1H* 1A 1B 1C 1G* 1F* 1D 1E* BP2 2A* 2B* 2D 2C* ARMOX armox * High speed (21.19) (21.19) (21.19) 21.06 21.38 21.11 21.26 21.33 21.10 21.27 21.10 21.35 21.09 21.30 21.13 Plate thickness (mm) 1.50 1.50 6.25 4.50 4.75 4.50 5.75 6.25 5.00 7.00 1.75 1.65 1.75 1.85 Speed (m/s) 329 232 116 175 262 322 339 400 451 470 489 188 236 271 293 444 Energy (J) 1147 570 143 322 734 1094 1222 1706 2146 2349 2523 377 587 782 907 2079 Result Powder (g) 1.75 1.10 0.75 1.85 1.30 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.35 2.50 2.50 0.90 1.10 1.30 1.50 2.40
perforation stop stop stop stop/crack stop stop stop perforation perforation stop stop perforation perforation stop
21.09 3.60 camera footage available
The displacement of the plate around the bullet impact is made visible by a second 3D scan after the ballistic testing. The displacement of material around the impact locations is depicted in different colours, purple is a displacement backwards, yellow when the material has come forward. Dark green and light blue indicate no displacement in comparison with the original state of the breastplate. As can be seen in Figure 33 and Figure 34 the deformation in BP2 is over a much larger area than in BP1, although the energy was much lower. This stands to reason, because the plate is much thinner and therefore easier to deform. In Appendix H a thickness cross-section of three bullet impacts (A, G and F) are given, the thickness reduction is clearly visible.
42
For Show or Safety?
F B G A
Figure 33: Displacement in BP1 in mm The weight loss of the bullets (see Table 9) is the amount of lead that has been molten on impact and flew away. The heat of fusion of lead is 24.1 J/g, an approach to the amount of energy that goes into bullet deformation and melting can be calculated by multiplying the weight loss with the heat of fusion of lead. The resulting energy that is lost because of melting the lead of the bullets is only a small part of the total energy. Also the energy needed to deform the bullet (see 4.2.2) is very low. The energy needed to perforate the breastplate is the total energy available minus the energy lost on deformation and partially melting of the bullet. Because these last two factors are relatively small, and difficult to determine exactly, in the end the total amount of energy is needed to account for all actions that lead to the perforation of a plate of certain thickness.
43
For Show or Safety?
B C
Figure 34: Displacement in BP2 in mm Table 9: Weight loss of bullets Mass before (g) BP2 2A 2B 2D 2C BP1 1H 1A 1B 1C 1G 1F 1D 1E ARMOX armox 21.35 21.09 21.30 21.13 21.06 21.38 21.11 21.26 21.33 21.10 21.27 21.10 21.09 Mass after (g) 21.00 20.66 20.56 20.35 12.02 19.06 17.91 16.82 16.23 16.95 18.04 15.93 11.64 Weight loss (g) 0.34 0.43 0.74 0.78 9.04 2.32 3.20 4.44 5.10 4.15 3.23 5.17 9.45 Weight loss (%) 1.6 2.1 3.5 3.7 42.9 10.8 15.1 20.9 23.9 19.7 15.2 24.5 44.8 Energy loss (J) 8.3 10.4 17.8 18.7 217.8 55.8 77.0 107.0 122.8 100.0 77.8 124.7 227.7
44
For Show or Safety?
4.3.2 Energy versus thickness

Increasing the thickness of armour is known to have been a common practise to offer more protection against bullet impacts. However, it is not very straightforward how the increase in thickness affects the ballistic performance, i.e. how much more energy the plate can withstand. Because of the various factors affecting the ballistic limit and therefore the amount of protection offered, it is not possible to say without some research what the influence of thickness of the plate is on the performance. In Figure 35 the measured thickness and energy are plotted. The square data points with a cross indicate the shots that perforated the material in question. For the energy error a measuring error of the speed of 10 m/s is used. For the error in thickness 0.2 mm for BP1 and 0.1 mm for BP2 is used. A line can be drawn to divide the data points that correspond to perforation and those who do not. This yields an interesting picture; data from both BP1 and BP2 obey more or less to this boundary, and AISI 1137 steel (used for test shots) also seems to obey the line, but because only two points are available, this is not certain. ARMOX does not, but this is a very different material, especially designed to withstand impacts of various projectiles. This line can be considered to indicate the energy needed to perforate a plate of critical thickness tc;
E = t c
(2)
with = 2.810-3 J/mm, a material dependent constant, due to the position of the points of perforation and of no perforation this is a constant value in this case. The straight line is explained when the way of perforation of the breastplates by the bullet is simplified by comparing it to making a hole in a plate with a (round) punch load. The failure of the plate is assumed to be caused by pure shear stress only, factors like toughening of the material because of partial deformation will be neglected, because these would make the comparison unnecessarily complex. The shear area As on which this stress acts is the circumference of the hole times the thickness of the plate:
As = 2rt
(3)
in which r is the radius of the hole (and thus of the bullet) and t is the thickness of the plate. If a force F is required to make a hole, the average shear stress in the plate is that force divided by the shear area:
s =
F As
(4)
This shear stress is required to cause yielding of the material, which will lead to fracture. In this simplified model the critical thickness is proportional to the energy of the bullet, but, as mentioned before, several factors are neglected in this approach. The toughening of the material due to partial deformation is neglected, which would mean that with a higher thickness relatively more energy is required to perforate the plate. The reason why the line goes through the origin is because no energy is required to perforate a plate of zero thickness.
45
For Show or Safety?
No Perforation
7 6
(cracked surface)
Thickness (mm)
5 4 3 2 1
Perforation
0 0 500 1000 1500
Energy (J)
BP1 BP1 perforated BP2 BP2 perforated AISI 1137 Steel 1137 perforated ARMOX 2000 2500 3000
Figure 35: Energy vs. thickness as measured
46
For Show or Safety?
5 Discussion
5.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter all results are given and discussed. From these results three main topics can be distinguished. First, because of the results of varying analyses the originality of BP2 is doubted. Secondly the microstructure of BP1 is very interesting and leads to the conclusion that different pieces of iron were forged together to form the layers in BP1. Lastly, the ballistic testing yielded interesting results and the performance of the material with respect to the thickness and the impact characteristics is discussed.
5.2 Authenticity of BP2

There are four aspects that indicate that the breastplate sold as originating from 1645 is in fact not a seventeenth century breastplate but one made in the nineteenth century, or later. These aspects are the shape, the thickness, the texture and the microstructure. The shape of the breastplate in general gives doubts as to the originality; it is not found commonly in other breastplates from the seventeenth century. Most painting of inside (and outside) of armour is of a later date, 19th or 20th century. There is little or no evidence that armour was painted in the early or mid 17th century. However, absence of proof is no proof of absence, and besides, the paint can in a later stage be put on original specimens as well. A second indication that BP2 is not a 17th century breastplate but a replica from probably the nineteenth century lies with the thickness. The thickness itself, 1.8 mm, is not uncommon for armour in the seventeenth century, but the 3D scan showed that the variation in thickness is very low (Figure 27). The regular thickness points to it being made from a rolled plate. (Hot) rolling was not available in the seventeenth century, but became common practise in the eighteenth and especially the nineteenth century during the industrial revolution. Another indication for the use of a rolled plate lies in the fact that in BP2 the middle part is slightly thinner than the outer regions. If you start with an evenly rolled plate and try to make a breastplate, you will find that more hammering is needed to form the vestigial peascod in the middle. More hammering will cause the plate to become thinner. With period breastplates this effect normally seems to have been cancelled out by making the centre part thicker to start with, although examples where the middle is thinner than the outer parts are also found. The texture analysis at the ISIS facility shows a texture that is common for rolled material (Figure 32). This is good proof that it actually is rolled material instead of material flattened by hammering. The microstructure of BP2 is not very common for 17th century material. The main ingredients, ferrite and slag inclusions, are regularly found in seventeenth century armour, but the slag is not that evenly distributed throughout the 17th century material; randomly distributed bands of slag are more common. The size of the slag inclusions and the amount of total slag (less than 0.8%) give an indication that puddled or Victorian wrought iron is used. The puddling technique for making iron only became common practise well after the seventeenth century. The microstructure is very homogeneous throughout the breastplate, opposite to what is found in BP1 or other original samples [Williams 2003]. All factors combined, it can be said that BP2 is a replica from a later period, presumably the nineteenth century, in which period many replicas of 15th 47
For Show or Safety?
to 17th century armour are known to have been made (particularly after 1828, when the organisation of a medieval tournament in England inspired the reproduction of (missing or lost) 15th century armour, which in turn led to the reproduction of other armour also for decorative purposes, to impress visitors of the manor where various pieces or suits of armour are displayed).
5.3 Layered structure of BP1

The armourers in the seventeenth century recycled armour. Old fashioned or too thin armour was recycled to form new thicker armour that offered better protection. This way layers can be formed, by forging plates of iron on the inside of thin armour. Evidence of these layered structures is best visible in the so-called duplex breastplates, where turned flanges on the inside show that it consists of more than one layer. This forging together is sometimes very crudely done, but can also be very precise, without an overlap or flange. There are 27 duplex breastplates available at the Royal Armouries alone, so it is likely that in the rest of Europe more specimens can be found [De Reuck et al., 2005]. Forge welding plates of iron together with steel was done, but this was difficult to do and steel is also more expensive than iron. Because of the large demand of cheap breastplates the armourers could not produce armour of high quality steel and the thickness of the armours is an indication for the amount of protection offered. The mechanical properties of a layered plate with slag inclusions on the forgewelded lines are inferior to a single layered plate without these continuous layers of slag. The slag forms slip planes upon deformation, so the resistance against slip is lower, also the inclusions are crack initiators, locations where cracks can start more easily. If no slag was present in the layered structure this difference would probably be much lower, so the poor quality can be explained largely through the presence of large amounts of slag in BP1 (3% on average, locally more than 5%). The high amount of slag is not uncommon for this period, but is not considered to be the result of good craftsmanship. Forging plates together should help taking out part of the slag, because the forging will take place at a temperature above the melting temperature of slag. Remelting iron in order to start out with a fresh lump was not done until the nineteenth century, after the Bessemer process was invented (patented in 1855). So in order to produce thick iron and not having the opportunity to start with new material, forging old plates together seems to have been the only logical option. Layering of armour with different kinds of iron or steel can also be an option. Bladesmiths especially were very familiar with the different properties of iron and steel. Knives and swords were sometimes laminated (or pattern-welded) for beauty but also for practicality. A soft iron back with a high-carbon steel tip that could be sharpened formed the main ingredients of a good knife. There are examples of consciously laminated armour plates, but this is mostly found in brigandines, which consist of a number of smaller plates riveted to a leather coat. These small plates were sometimes laminated with a soft outside and a hard inside. Also tin-coating to prevent corrosion was applied. This illustrates the knowledge of armourers and bladesmiths of the different properties of iron and steel and the ability to apply them correctly. On BP1 however, there is no clear indication, other than the carbon rich area in the upper left corner of the breastplate, that different materials have been used for layering. So no different properties can be combined. Also, on the upper left area the harder area is on the outside, which is illogical, because a harder surface will crack sooner, and a softer ductile outside with a harder inside is preferred when you desire resistance to impacts. So for this breastplate no real attempt was made to improve the qualities of the breastplate by forging layers of iron together, other than the resulting thickness increase that improves the protective quality of the breastplate. 48
For Show or Safety?
There are several factors that indicate that BP1 consists of layers of iron, forged together. Delamination at various locations around the edge where two parts of more or less similar thickness can be seen, indicate a two-layered plate. The microstructure of the cross-section confirms this, but also adds a third layer that is forged only in the centre part of the breastplate, see Figure 23. The microstructure shows in the middle region (cs2 and cs3) two bands of pearlitic iron. This locally increased carbon content can be the result of forging the plates together; before forging the plates were heated in a charcoal fire and thus some carburisation on the surface of the plates occurred. Through forging and subsequent heat treatments (enabling quicker diffusion of carbon) the carbon has spread through the material and the bands of pearlite have locally become so wide that they are no longer distinguishable as bands. This is also the case for cs1 where no bands are visible. The microstructure is very inhomogeneous, large grains are found next to small grains, and slag inclusions are found throughout the samples, but mostly localised at the side of the cross-section corresponding with the front of the breastplate. This inhomogeneity can be explained if bloom iron was used in its manufacture. The iron formed in a bloomery is very inhomogeneous [Williams 2003]. Local variations in carbon content of 1 wt% are not uncommon. Also, slag concentrations vary throughout the bloom. When the bloom is flattened through hammering, the slag areas also flatten and form layers or thin plates of slag in the iron. A lower grade of iron with higher slag content can have been used to form the outside layer of the breastplate. This higher slag content on the outer surface was not found that clearly in the samples BP1-Ix and BP1-Iy, the total amount of slag is also much lower in those two samples, almost no slag is visible in BP1-Iy. This again illustrates the heterogeneous structure of BP1.
5.4 Critical thickness of armour

From the graph in which the energy of the bullet vs. the thickness of the plate on impact location are compared (Figure 35), it has become clear that there is a definite amount of energy a plate of certain thickness can withstand. In Equation (2) the energy is related to the critical thickness of BP1 and BP2 represented by a constant value . ARMOX, which is designed to withstand impacts, has a higher . This graph and division in situations of perforation and of no perforation only applies to lead bullets of 16 mm diameter. In a more general plot the size of the bullet was taken into account (see Figure 36). As mentioned in Equation (3), the radius affects the shear area As and therefore the influence of a smaller bullet is different than of a large bullet. With this taken into account the following equation can be made:
E c = (2rb t c )
(5)
where rb is the radius of the bullet. In a graph where the critical thickness tc is plotted against the energy divided by the bullet radius, a straight line also separates the situations of perforation and of no perforation, Figure 36, slope is (2)-1. The experiment of Graz (see 2.6.5) with a perforated breastplate also obeys this boundary, perforation occurred at an Ec/rb value of 154 J/mm, as is indicated in Figure 36 with a cross. The properties of the weapon are now on the x-axis (energy of the bullet divided by the radius of the bullet), and the thickness of the armour plate is on the y-axis. The parameter is dependent on the material properties of the armour. With a higher hardness H v of the material will increase (for convenience a first order approach is made, but further investigation should either confirm or deny this relation):
= H v
49
(6)
For Show or Safety?
and with Equation (5) the relation between critical thickness and energy becomes:
tc H v =
1 Ec 2 rb
(7)
In this approach only hardness and thickness of the material in question needs to be measured, both possible in a non-destructive way, to predict the resistance of the plate against a specific weapon at a certain distance. More investigation on modern material with respect to energy and hardness is needed to give a value to .
Figure 36: Critical thickness of armour Selected muskets and pistols from the 16th to 18th century were tested on performance [Krenn, 1991]. During this test modern gunpowder was used. Seventeenth century gunpowder will not burn as effectively as modern gunpowder does, so the results on speed and thus energy of the bullets given by these muskets and pistols are higher than what could be achieved in their original time. In Table 10 the results of the testing of some 17th century weapons are listed. The 17.3-gram bullet from the Styrian matchlock musket has a muzzle velocity of 449 m/s. The corresponding energy-radius ratio (245 J/mm) will cause perforation of a breastplate with similar properties to BP1 and BP2 of a thickness below 5.2 mm (see line M2 in Figure 36). It is high enough to penetrate BP2, even at a range of over 30 meters, when the energy-radius ratio drops to 174 J/mm, corresponding with a perforation of plates of less than 3.7 mm thick. The wheellock musket however has a lower muzzle velocity but a slightly larger bullet, resulting in an energy-radius ratio of 281.5 J/mm (line M3 in Figure 36), which is enough to perforate BP1 on locations where the thickness is below 6 mm. Again, this musket has enough power to perforate BP2, even at a distance of 100 m. BP1 can resist a shot from the wheellock pistol at any distance, while BP2 risks perforation even at 30 m distance. In Figure 37 the critical thickness corresponding to muzzle energy of muskets and the energy at 30 m and at 100 m distance is given. In this plot it is easy to see that BP2, at just 1.8 mm, offers little protection. The middle region (above 5 mm thickness) of BP1 is able to resist all shots from pistols (similar values for t c as M1 at muzzle and 30m distance) and almost all shots from muskets from the early seventeenth century at any distance. To be on the safe side, and depending on the type of musket, 50
For Show or Safety?
protection against musket shots is offered at a distance of 30 m and further away. Especially towards the end of the seventeenth century the muskets became so powerful, that it was not possible to make breastplates that were able to offer enough protection and comfort at the same time. Table 10: Test firing selected 17th century weapons, after [Krenn, 1991]
muzzle velocity (m/s) velocity at 100m (m/s)
Average bullet weight (g)
Average bullet caliber (mm)
velocity at 30m (m/s)
Acronym for weapon
Weapons Wheellock musket, Suhl, 1593 Matchlock musket, Styria, 1st quarter 17th C. Wheellock musket, rifled, 1st half 17th C. Wheellock pistol, Nuremberg, c. 1620 Flintlock musket with combined matchlock, Suhl, 1686 Flintlock musket converted from matchlock c. 1700 Flintlock musket converted from matchlock c. 1700 Flintlock musket converted from matchlock c. 1700 Flintlock pistol, Ferlach, c.1700
10 9 8
M1 M2 M3 P1 M4 M5 M6 M7 P2
10.84 17.38 32.06 9.56 30.93 27.54 32.16 34.25 14.45
12.3 14.3 17.5 11.8 17.5 16.8 17.6 17.8 13.5
427 449 392 438 494 474 451 467 385
349 378 342 355 426 406 391 406 323
238 264 260 305 291 287 300 -
998 1752 2463 917 3774 3094 3271 3735 1071
660 1242 1875 602 2807 2270 2458 2823 754
Critical thickness (mm)
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 Distance (m) 80 100 120
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
Figure 37: Critical thickness at various distances
51
energy at 100m (J) 307 606 1084 1439 1166 1324 1541 -
energy at 30m (J)
muzzle energy (J)
For Show or Safety?
As mentioned before, in the second half of the seventeenth century, after about 1660, armour was largely discarded, and in Figure 38, a plot where the critical thickness determined through Equation (5) for energies delivered by the weapons in Table 10 is depicted against the date, it is clear that there is a steady increase in critical thickness with time. The corresponding weight of the breastplate is also given in this plot on the right side. The weight is for a 0.17 m2 plate of a certain critical thickness. This area is based on the weight and thickness of BP2 and the density of iron, 7,800 kg/m3. As can be seen in the plot, after about 1660 the critical thickness at 30 m distance is at least 5 mm, which would correspond to a breastplate weight of almost 7 kg. In this plot only musket data is used. When the critical thickness in Figure 38 is compared with actual thickness data of original breastplates [Williams 2003], see Figure 39, there is an agreement in the rise of maximum thickness and critical thickness. The maximum thickness found lies above the line of critical thickness based on muzzle energies of the muskets. Also the thickness for breastplates for horsemen is on average higher than for infantry, and this indicates that infantry is only protected at larger distances (100 m or further away) than the cavalry, so that cavalry could engage at closer distances than infantry with less personal risk.
10 9 8
Critical thickness (mm)
13.4 12.1 10.8 9.4 8.1 6.7 5.4 4.0
Corresoponding weight (kg)
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1580 muzzle 30 m 100 m
2.7 1.3
1600
1620
1640
1660
1680
Year
Figure 38: Critical thickness of armour through time
0.0 Linear 1700 1720 (muzzle) Linear (30 m) Linear (100 m)
52
For Show or Safety?
9 8 7
Thickness (mm)
critical thickness based on muzzle energy critical thickness at 30 m critical thickness at 100 m breastplate for horsemen breastplate for infantry
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1450
1500
1550
Year
1600
1650
Figure 39: Average thickness of breastplates through time, after [Williams, 2003] There is a grey zone around the line that divides perforation from no perforation. Does it always mean with perforation, so with defeat of the armour, that the wearer dies? The definition of perforation or full penetration depends on the use of the material. Nowadays, full penetration of materials used in the army is achieved as soon as the top part of the bullet reaches the back of the plate. The ballistic limit consists of parameters (speed, size, mass, hardness etc. of bullet) with which full penetration is just achieved. Full penetration according to army standards does not mean that the wearer is incapacitated; so even with full penetration the wearer will sometimes survive. To defeat armour, full penetration is desired, but with enough remaining energy of the bullet to perforate the fabric worn under the armour and to make a lethal or semi-lethal wound. When the criteria for full penetration have just been met, the impact can be so severe, that the wearer is out of breath and needs time to recuperate before he is into action again. But also, in the heat of battle, severe damage to the body can be ignored until the battle is over or until the wounds finally take their toll. The ballistic limit for projectiles that penetrate solely on the basis of their kinetic energy is affected by many parameters. For spherical bullets the projectile yaw does not play a role, but the projectile and target hardness, density and yield strength affect the ballistic limit, as well as the target thickness and target obliquity (angle of impact). In the experiments the last parameter was neglected, all impacts were more or less at a right angle. However, these small variations in angle were not taken into account. The hardness of the bullet plays a significant role with respect to ballistic limit. With increasing hardness of the bullet the ballistic limit drops, because less energy goes to plastic deformation of the projectile, and more into perforation of the target. Even though during testing only lead bullets were used, it is known that sometimes steel bullets were used in the 17th century, but this is more an exception than a rule, and extremely rare, because lead bullets are much easier to manufacture and do the job fine enough. But it has to be reckoned with, that if a breastplate is bullet-proof for lead bullets, it does not necessarily mean that it can withstand steel bullets shot with the same pistol or musket (even though steel bullets have just over half the weight of similar sized lead bullets). The energy that originates from the burned gunpowder 53
For Show or Safety?
is transferred to the bullet in the gun. For a lighter bullet, this will result in a higher initial speed. Because steel is much harder than lead and less deformation of the bullet will occur, less energy of the bullet on impact is lost on bullet deformation, and more energy to perforate the breastplate is available. To sum things up, by combining various available data on armour it was shown that in the second half of the seventeenth century the weapons became too powerful, and that breastplates able to offer enough protection became uncomfortably heavy to wear, and were therefore abandoned. The amount of protection offered by a breastplate depends on a number of factors: thickness, material properties of the breastplate like hardness, and the speed, size and less relevantly the material of the bullet. Most of these factors can be determined in a non-destructive way, and thus a prediction of the amount of protection offered by a certain breastplate can be made. The critical thickness that is needed for a breastplate to protect the wearer against a weapon of certain date corresponds very well with the actual measured (maximum) thickness of armour through time.
54
For Show or Safety?
6 Conclusion
With respect to the authenticity of the breastplates it can be said that BP2 is most likely a 19th century replica because of the shape, thickness, texture, microstructure and performance, although original breastplates with low thickness and therefore low performance are known to exist. There is no reason to doubt the originality of BP1. The texture analysis as a result from neutron diffraction is a good non-destructive method to prove the non-authenticity of certain pieces of armour; it can indicate a rolled texture, which will exclude the likeliness that armour was made before the eighteenth century. The structure of BP1 has proven to be very interesting. The layers in the microstructure of BP1 arise probably due to forging together of recycled material, or due to reinforcing of old armour that was too thin. The inhomogeneous structure is likely to have come from the heterogeneous bloom the iron plates were forged from. To answer the main question whether the breastplates offer enough protection against impacts from bullets from muskets or pistols in the seventeenth century, it can be said that BP1 offers enough protection against a pistol at any distance, but at short ranges (less than 30 metres) muskets have a fair chance of defeating the breastplate. BP2 does not offer enough protection against a pistolshot, even at 30 m distance, and musket shots will definitely perforate the breastplate at any distance. The model that links the weapon parameters to the critical thickness of armour (below which perforation of the breastplate is likely) should help to predict the performance of other pieces of armour, although more investigation with respect to the model is necessary. Especially attention has to be paid to finding out the material properties that define the value of (Equation (5)). This can be done with experiments on modern iron and steel with variable hardness and other material properties that can be varied to find the parameters that influence . For the ballistic testing that is needed to investigate this, it is recommended to use lead bullets, preferably also of variable diameter.
55
For Show or Safety?
7 References
Callister, W.D. (1997). Materials Science and Engineering, an Introduction, Canada, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Childs, J. (2001). Warfare in the Seventeenth Century, London, Cassell History of Warfare. De Reuck, A., Starley, D., Richardson, Th. and Edge, D. (2005). Duplex armour: an unrecognised mode of construction, Arms & Armour, Vol. 2, No. 1. pp. 5-26 Hughes, B.P. (1974). Firepower: Weapons effectiveness on the battlefield, 1630 1850, London, Arms and Armour Press. Kocks, U.F., Tom, C.N. and Wenk, H.-R. eds. (1998). Texture and Anisotropy, Cambrigde University Press. pp. 181-198 Krenn, P. (1989). Von alten Handfeuerwaffen: Entwicklung, Technik, Leistung; Sondernausstellung im Landeszeughaus, Mai-Oktober 1989, Publication of the Armoury in Graz, Austria. pp. 72-73, 109 Krenn, P. (1991) Test-Firing Selected 16th-18th Century Weapons , Military Illustrated 33 (February 1991) pp. 34-38 Laible, R.C. ed. (1980). Ballistic Materials and Penetration Mechanics , Amsterdam, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. Puype, J.P. and Van der Hoeven, M. ed. (1993). Het arsenaal van de wereld. De Nederlandse wapenhandel in de Gouden Eeuw, Amsterdam, De Bataafsche Leeuw. Richardson, Th. (2004) The London Armourers of the 17th Century, Dorchester, The Dorset Press, Royal Armouries Monograph 7. Theophilus (1963) On Divers Arts (translated by Hawthorne, J.G. and Smith, C.S. from De diversis artibus), New York, Dover Publications. Van der Hoeven, M. ed. (1997). Exercise of Arms Warfare in the Netherlands, 1568 1648, Leiden, Brill. History of Warfare vol. 1. pp.17-32 Wasserman, G. and Grewen, J. (1962). Texturen metallischer Werkstoffe, Zweite auflage, Springer-Verlag. pp. 354-356 Williams A.R. and De Reuck A. (2002). The Royal Armoury at Greenwich 15151649, a history of its technology, Dorchester, The Dorset Press, Royal Armouries Monograph 4. Williams, A.R. (2003). The Knight and the Blast Furnace: a history of the metallurgy of armour in the middle ages & the early modern period, Leiden, Brill, History of Warfare vol. 12. Young, R.A. ed. (1993). The Rietveld Method, International Union of Crystallography, Oxford University Press Zukas, J.A. (1982). Impact Dynamics, New York, John Wiley & Sons. 56
For Show or Safety?
Appendices
Content: Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix A: Microstructure of 17th century armour ......................................... 58 B: Sampling for microstructure and composition analysis ................... 60 C: Crystal structures for Rietveld analysis........................................ 62 D: Microstructures, optical and SEM, and EPMA results ...................... 63 E: Measured locations of microhardness .......................................... 67 F: Graphs for tensile testing and compression test ............................ 75 G: Composition of lead bullets ....................................................... 77 H: Thickness reduction in bullet impact locations .............................. 79 I: Photographs before and after ballistic testing................................ 81
57
For Show or Safety?
Appendix A: Microstructure of 17th century armour Microstructure of armour from the first half of the seventeenth century, after [Williams, 2003]
Date Italian 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1602 1600 1630 German 1610 1620 1630 1619 1620 1641 1607 1609 1630 1630 1630 1630 1640 Polish 1630 English 1608 1610 Piece visor visor/helmet gorget gauntlet breastplate backplate helmet helmet gorget demi-shaffron breastplate burgonet gorget vambrace backplate breastplate breastplate breastplate (infantry) breastplate (cuirassier) helmet knee cop 12 hussar armours pasguard breastplate backplate vambrace pauldron visor gorget gauntlet pasguard visor grandguard gauntlet gauntlet grandguard bevor tasset helmet greave tasset helmet pauldron helmet breastplate helmet helmet Ferrite x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Pearlite x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Carbides x (isolated) x x x x x x x x x Martensite x x x x x x x x x x x Slag x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ? ? ? ? few ? ? ? ? x x ? ? x x x ? ? ? x x x x x %C 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 (0.2) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0.3 ? ? ? 0.1 -
1610 1610 1610 1610 1612 1625 1625 1630 French 1610 1640 Dutch 1610 1640
58
For Show or Safety?
Most carbides present are small grain boundary carbides (globular cementite), and mostly present in small amounts. The general structure of seventeenth century armour consists of ferrite with no or very small amounts of pearlite and slag inclusions. Most specimens have low or no carbon content. Description of armour parts: Bevor = A chin-shaped defence for the lower face, incorporating a gorget plate. Burgonet = A light, open-faced helmet popular in the sixteenth century as an alternative to the close-helmet for light cavalry. It was usually furnished with a peak over the brow, a combed skull, and hinged ear-pieces. The face opening could be closed by the addition of a falling bevor. Gauntlet = Armored glove mostly consisting of a single plate for the back of the hand and a smaller and flexible part of overlapping plates for the fingers Gorget = Close-fitting plate protecting the neck, throat, and upper chest (also called collar). Grandguard = A large reinforcing plate designed for the tilt, attached to the left side of the breastplate to cover the left shoulder, the upper arm and breastplate and the left side of the visor. Greave = Plate defence for the leg from knee to ankle, initially protecting only the front, but later the whole lower leg. Constructed of two plates hinged together and shaped to the contours of the muscle Knee cop = Knee protection, varying from single plate to three or more laminated plates. Pasguard = A reinforcing piece for the left elbow, used in tilting/jousting. Pauldron = Shoulder defence Shaffron = horse armour for horses head (fully or partially (demi) covered) Tasset = Overlapping plates covering the joint of the haunch part Vambrace = (lower) arm defence Visor = Protection for the eyes and face; a plate defence pivoted to the helmet
59
For Show or Safety?
Appendix B: Sampling for microstructure and composition analysis
60
For Show or Safety?
61
For Show or Safety?
Appendix C: Crystal structures for Rietveld analysis symmetry space group Im3m (bcc) Pnma Fm3m (fcc) Fd-3m lattice parameters () 2.8665 a = 5.082 b = 6.743 c = 4.522 a = 4.313 a = 8.3941 atom positions atom in x,y,z Fe in 0,0,0 Fe1 in 0.036,1/4,0.852 Fe2 in 0.186,0.063,0.3280 C in 0.890,1/4,0.450 Fe in 0,0,0 O in 1/2,1/2,1/2 Fe1 in 1/8,1/8,1/8 Fe2 in 1/2,1/2,1/2 O in 0.2549,0.2549,0.2549
Ferrite Fe Cementite Fe3C Wuestite FeO Magetite Fe3O4
cubic orthorhombic cubic cubic
62
For Show or Safety?
Appendix D: Microstructures, optical and SEM, and EPMA results
Microstructure of BP1A, on the ferrite grain boundaries the pearlite/cementite is visible as dark with at white boundary.
Slag inclusions in pearlitic area on BP1-cs2 63
For Show or Safety?
Small band of pearlite in ferritic matrix with in top left area a twin boundary (BP1cs2)
SEM photograph of pearlitic area in BP1A
64
For Show or Safety?
SEM photograph of slag inclusions in BP1B
SEM photo, detail of slag inclusion. With EDS a mapping of elements in and around this inclusion is made, see next page.
65
For Show or Safety? Mappings of elements around a slag inclusion
Image
Aluminium
Calcium
Carbon
Chlorine
Iron
Potassium
Magnesium
Manganese
Oxygen
Lead
Phosphor
Silicon
Sulphur
The intensity of the colours in the mappings indicates how strong the signal was or in what quantity the element is present on one location (relative values). The result of the mapping indicates that the slag inclusion consists of silicon and calcium oxides (darker area) and iron oxides (lighter area) and lies in an iron matrix. Also some manganese is present in the slag inclusion, but not in the iron. The values of this mapping are not absolute, they only give an indication. The result of the EPMA line-scan through the thickness of the cross-section at a location corresponding to the middle of BP1-cs2 yields only data on phosphor and manganese, both of which are not present in large amounts:
0,06 3,00
0,05
2,50
Concentration P (wt%)
0,04
2,00
Concentration Mn (wt%)
0,03
Phosphor
1,50
0,02
1,00
0,01
0,50
Manganese 0,00 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Measure point 0,00 140
66
For Show or Safety? Appendix E: Measured locations of microhardness
The thick line in the images indicates the front side of the breastplate. Sample 1Ax Sample 1Ay
Location Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Average Min Max Hardness (HV) 110.6 115.6 94.4 120.2 179.2 141.8 116.2 122.1 95.6 130.5 206.0 158.5 157.9 152.2 154.3 222.4 207.4 236.0 177.9 184.0 160.2 180.6 217.6 232.6 161.4 94.4 236.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Average Min Max
Hardness (HV) 106.8 116.4 94.4 106.4 182.1 144.4 144.4 151.3 117.2 126.8 171.2 191.0 131.8 138.1 130.5 131.1 157.3 163.9 137.7 130.9 110.0 128.9 176.5 183.6 140.5 94.4 191.0
67
For Show or Safety? Sample 1Bx
Master Thesis August 2005 Sample 1By
Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Average Min Max
Hardness (HV) 98.1 88.1 102.6 93.0 90.5 106.3 83.7 92.7 94.4 100.4 102.1 93.1 96.1 94.8 86.9 104.8 91.7 98.3 99.6 96.8 95.7 83.7 106.3
Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Average Min Max
Hardness (HV) 129.0 102.5 106.9 122.9 92.6 127.9 118.6 113.2 113.3 109.7 144.2 147.2 139.3 120.1 106.7 120.5 75.9 106.6 105.9 90.3 90.3 111.8 73.9 95.9 105.4 111.7 110.9 73.9 147.2
68
For Show or Safety? Sample 1Cx
Master Thesis August 2005 Sample 1Cy
Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Average Min Max
Hardness (HV) 149.3 139.8 161.5 112.8 133.2 141.4 150.1 170.4 165.2 112.7 123.0 141.3 140.0 156.1 113.4 119.9 129.4 140.3 138.9 112.7 170.4
Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Average Min Max
Hardness (HV) 121.5 135.2 140.2 123.8 100.4 102.0 131.0 125.5 123.7 107.9 105.0 91.0 129.0 126.6 109.2 113.9 109.0 113.1 96.9 116.0 91.0 140.2
69
For Show or Safety? Sample 2Ax
Master Thesis August 2005 Sample 2Ay
Location Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Average Min Max Hardness (HV) 131.9 130.0 134.0 142.8 118.0 128.0 121.8 124.5 158.5 141.3 140.9 148.5 204.9 163.3 150.4 153.4 172.7 163.5 170.3 154.4 123.4 126.6 124.6 112.5 143.3 112.5 204.9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Average Min Max
Hardness (HV) 124.9 119.1 122.6 122.6 125.4 114.9 134.2 151.1 129.4 120.6 130.5 132.8 127.3 114.9 151.1
70
For Show or Safety? Sample 2Bx
Master Thesis August 2005 Sample 2By
Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Average Min Max
Hardness (HV) 146.0 142.5 141.7 142.6 137.0 135.5 137.9 132.4 141.9 138.5 143.3 147.4 140.6 135.5 147.4
Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Average Min Max
Hardness (HV) 114.9 106.1 115.2 122.7 115.0 116.4 110.8 116.5 144.7 140.0 125.8 147.8 142.4 143.2 174.4 175.5 134.6 136.9 129.3 138.5 132.5 106.1 175.5
71
For Show or Safety? Sample 2Cx
Master Thesis August 2005 Sample 2Cy
Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Average Min Max
Hardness (HV) 110.4 107.7 106.4 132.6 96.2 97.3 108.7 129.7 102.2 93.7 116.7 134.8 98.5 110.4 93.7 134.8
Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Average Min Max
Hardness (HV) 124.2 108.1 95.6 102.6 125.1 134.2 132.1 121.4 133.9 137.5 132.2 136.0 123.6 95.6 137.5
72
For Show or Safety?
Microhardness cross-section BP1-cs3, middle part of breastplate
Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average Min Max
Hardness A 101,6 103,8 130,5 129,2 122,2 103,6 95,4 94,2 85,7 93,6 76,8 89,7 95,6 103,3 102,7 101,9 76,8 130,5
(HV) B 112,8 113,2 126,2 122,9 123,6 100,1 92,9 90,6 89,5 95,3 88,4 100,0 91,5 95,1 103,0 88,4 126,2
C 114,3 108,1 126,3 140,3 119,5 92,1 93,2 94,1 85,5 89,4 94,2 90,0 95,2 72,4 111,6 101,7 72,4 140,3
D 109,0 98,8 111,4 136,4 107,8 89,7 89,9 90,4 91,1 89,1 92,8 78,3 88,6 97,5 97,9 78,3 136,4
E 98,1 92,8 118,6 122,1 125,9 91,8 83,9 90,4 85,8 86,5 80,0 80,1 96,1 102,6 96,8 80,0 125,9
F 103,2 92,6 103,2 106,7 112,8 84,4 88,8 99,7 94,2 86,8 83,9 94 92,2 124,5 97,6 83,9 124,5
73
For Show or Safety? Microhardness profile for BP2:

250
200
Hardness (HV)
150
100
50
BP2A BP2B BP2C

0 0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 80,0 100,0 Distance from backside (%)
74
For Show or Safety?
Appendix F: Graphs for tensile testing and compression test Tensile testing of BP1
300
250 BP1-1 200

Stress (N/mm2)
BP1-3
BP1-2
150
100
50 shallow slopes due to slip 0 0 20 40 60 80 100

Strain (%)
75
For Show or Safety?
350 300 250

Stress (N/mm^2)
BP2-4
BP2-3
200 150 100 50 0 0 10 20 30

Strain (%)
40
50
60
Tensile testing of BP2

10000 9000 8000 7000
Stress (N)
6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 2 4 6 Strain (mm) 8 10 12
Compression test lead bullet
76
For Show or Safety?
Appendix G: Composition of lead bullets

MK/ASp TU-Delft SuperQ Visit our website at: Rotterdamseweg 137 k 030 http://www.uniquant.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------C:\UQ5\USER\Uni2005\JOB\JOB.092 2005-02-03 Sample ident = 09205/02/002 (Large Bullet) Remark = AN 2471 1480 Rh 60kV LiF220 Ge111 T1Ap Measure Frog.: UniQuant C:\UQ5\USER\Uni2005\Appl\AnySample.kap 2005-01-10 Calculated as : Elements Matrix (Shape & ImpFc) : 11Teflon X-ray path = Helium Film type = 1 Prolene4 Case number = 0 All known Eff.Diam. = 22.0 mm Eff.Area = 379.9 mm2 KnownConc = 0 % Rest = 0 % Viewed Mass = 13425.00 mg Dil/Sample = 0 Sample Height = 2.68 mm < means that the concentration is < 20 mg/kg <2e means wt% < 2 StdErr. A + or & means: Part of 100% sum Z wt% StdErr Z wt% StdErr Z wt% StdErr ========================= ========================= ========================= SumBe..F 0 88.09 29+Cu 0.0289 0.0045 52 Te < 11 Na <2e 0.14 30+Zn 0.0098 0.0033 53 I <2e 0.0067 12 Mg <2e 0.029 31+Ga < 55 Cs < 13+Al 0.187 0.018 32 Ge < 56 Ba < 14+Si 0.0779 0.0086 33+As 0.041 0.010 SumLa..Lu 0.10 0.14 15+Px 0.0147 0.0023 34 Se < 72 Hf <2e 0.011 15 P 35+Br < 73 Ta <2e 0.0087 16+Sx < 37 Rb <2e 0.018 74 W < 16 S 38+Sr < 75 Re <2e 0.0093 17+Cl 0.114 0.030 39 Y <2e 0.0080 76+0s 0.069 0.028 18 Ar <2e 0.0071 40+Zr < 77 Ir < 19+K 0.0809 0.0090 41 Nb < 78 Pt <2e 0.0062 20+Ca 0.0684 0.0076 42 Mo <2e 0.0077 79 Au <2e 0.0060 21 Sc < 44 Ru <2e 0.0064 80+Hg < 22+Ti 0.0106 0.0030 45 Rh <2e 0.0063 81+Tl < 23 V < 46 pd < 82+pb 99.18 0.04 24 Cr < 47 Ag < 83 Bi <2e 0.012 25+Mn 0.0082 0.0037 48 Cd < 90 Th < 26+Fe 0.0195 0.0048 49 In < 92+U 0.0401 0.0042 27 Co < 50 Sn < 94+Pu < 28 Ni < 51 Sb < 95+Am < ==== Light Elements ===== ==== Noble Elements ===== ====== Lanthanides ====== SumBe..F 0 88.09 44 Ru <2e 0.0064 57+La 0.0456 0.0068 4 Be * 45 Rh <2e 0.0063 58+Ce < 5 B * 46 Pd < 59 Pr <2e 0.012 6 C * 47 Ag < 60 Nd <2e 0.0067 7 N * 75 Re <2e 0.0093 62 Sm <2e 0.011 8 O * 76+0s 0.069 0.028 63 Eu <2e 0.0063 9 F < 77 Ir < 64 Gd < 78 Pt <2e 0.0062 65 Tb < 79 Au <2e 0.0060 66 Dy < 67 Ho <2e 0.014 68 Er < 69 Tm <2e 0.0085 70 Yb <2e 0.0083 71 Lu < KnownConc= 0 REST= 0 D/S= 0 Sum Conc's before normalisation to 100% : 99.0 %
77
For Show or Safety?
MK/ASP TU-Delft SuperQ Visit our website at: Rotterdamseweg 137 k 030 http://www.uniquant.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------C:\UQ5\USER\Uni2005\JOB\JOB.093 2005-02-03 Sample ident = 09305/02/003 (Small Bullet) Remark = AN 2471 1480 Rh 60kV LiF220 Ge111 T1AP Measure Prog.: UniQuant C:\UQ5\USER\Uni2005\Appl\AnySample.kap 2005-01-10 Calculated as : Elements Matrix (Shape & ImpFc) : 11Teflon X-ray path = Helium Film type = 1 Prolene4 Case number = 0 All known Eff.Diam. = 16.5 mm Eff.Area = 213.7 mm2 KnownConc = 0 % Rest = 0 % Viewed Mass = 7244.000 mg Dil/Sample = 0 Sample Height = 3.31 mm < means that the concentration is < 20 mg/kg <2e means wt% < 2 StdErr. A + or & means: Part of 100% sum Z wt% StdErr Z wt% StdErr Z wt% StdErr ========================= ========================= ========================= SumBe..F 0 99.90 29+Cu 0.0487 0.0060 52 Te < 11 Na < 30+Zn 0.0113 0.0044 53 I <2e 0.015 12 Mg < 31 Ga <2e 0.011 55 Cs <2e 0.015 13+Al 0.250 0.027 32 Ge <2e 0.0050 56 Ba < 14+Si 0.135 0.015 33 As < Sum1a..Lu 0.08 0.18 15 Px 34 Se < 72 Hf <2e 0.017 15+P 0.0138 0.0035 35 Br < 73 Ta < 16+Sx < 37+Rb < 74 W < 16 S 38 Sr < 75 Re < 17+Cl < 39+Y < 76+0s 0.077 0.031 18 Ar <2e 0.011 40+Zr < 77+Ir < 19+K 0.0322 0.0075 41 Nb < 78 Pt <2e 0.0093 20+Ca 0.0566 0.0079 42 Mo <2e 0.014 79 Au < 21 Sc < 44 Ru <2e 0.013 80 Hg < 22 Ti <2e 0.0042 45 Rh <2e 0.013 81+Tl < 23 V < 46 Pd < 82+Pb 98.66 0.06 24 Cr < 47 Ag < 83 Bi <2e 0.014 25 Mn <2e 0.0053 48 Cd < 90 Th < 26+Fe 0.223 0.025 49 In < 92+U 0.0184 0.0085 27 Co < 50+Sn 0.399 0.025 94+Pu < 28 Ni <2e 0.0041 51+Sb 0.042 0.012 95+Am < ==== Light Elements ===== ==== Noble Elements ===== ====== Lanthanides ====== SumBe..F 0 99.90 44 Ru <2e 0.013 57+La 0.0328 0.0096 4 Be * 45 Rh <2e 0.013 58+Ce < 5 B * 46 Pd < 59 Pr <2e 0.016 6 C * 47 Ag < 60 Nd <2e 0.0088 7 N * 75 Re < 62 Sm < 8 O * 76+0s 0.077 0.031 63 Eu <2e 0.0091 9 F < 77+Ir < 64 Gd <2e 0.0090 78 Pt <2e 0.0093 65 Tb <2e 0.0090 79 Au < 66 Dy <2e 0.018 67 Ho < 68 Er < 69 Tm <2e 0.011 70 Yb < 71 Lu <2e 0.011 KnownConc= 0 REST= 0 D/S= 0 Sum Conc's before normalisation to 100% : 100.9 %
78
For Show or Safety?
Appendix H: Thickness reduction in bullet impact locations At three locations the through thickness of bullet impacts is given, and the thickness reduction is clearly visible. The grid is 1 by 1 mm.
79
For Show or Safety?
80
For Show or Safety?
Appendix I: Photographs before and after ballistic testing Details of BP1
81
For Show or Safety?
Details of BP2
82
For Show or Safety?
Halfway through ballistic testing, left BP1 and right BP2
83
For Show or Safety?
Impact details of BP1
84

For Show or Safety

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

For Show or Safety

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

For Show or Safety?

- A Study on Structure, Ballistic Performance and Authenticity of Seventeenth Century Breastplates