If the 0101.06 plate conditioning protocol does not induce catastrophic damage...

[negativenines]

Then what does? I mean things reasonably likely to happen to the plate.

The 0101.06 standard calls for a twice repeated hard impact directly to the face of the plate before testing. It seems pretty well representative of dropping the plate face first in to concrete from the height you would generally be handling such an item. ( https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/223054.pdf starts on page 33.)

So why the concern about the fragility of a ceramic plate and the danger of a "cracked" ceramic element?

Does the weighted 4 foot fall not create cracks in the ceramic element?

Does the weighted 4 foot fall create cracks, yet leave the plate functional?

These standards lead me to believe that the fragility of ceramic plates, the danger of having a "cracked" plate, or possibly both, have been overstated. Help me understand if I am way off base drawing this conclusion.

[rockmyglock]

Then what does? I mean things reasonably likely to happen to the plate.

I'm not sure if the testing creates cracks in the plate, but I do know that dropping a plate on a corner will create more damage than a frontal impact......

or so I read on teh interwebs.

[negativenines]

Well, I guess my answer comes in to the form of the knowledge that very few ceramic plates are actually 0101.06 certified, and for whatever reason the governing bodies allow plates to be certified to superceded standards.

[DocGKR]

A flat hit to the face of the plate is not such a big deal. As noted, corners are more fragile. Review how many ceramic containing plates are found to have occult cracking after a single military deployment. Assess ceramic plates that have been tossed into the trunk of a Crown Vic along with 300 lbs of other gear for a couple of years. Then I suspect you will begin to see why up to 10% of ceramic plates are found to be damaged through routine use and handling.