Next Article in Journal
Independent Heating Performances in the Sub-Zero Environment of MWCNT/PDMS Composite with Low Electron-Tunneling Energy
Previous Article in Journal
MMP-2 Silencing through siRNA Loaded Positively-Charged Nanoparticles (AcPEI-NPs) Counteracts Chondrocyte De-Differentiation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Study on Curing Deformation of Composite Thin Shells Prepared by M-CRTM with Adjustable Injection Gap
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Fiber Fraction on Ballistic Impact Behavior of 3D Woven Composites

1
School of Textile Science and Engineering, Tiangong University, Tianjin 300387, China
2
Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Advanced Textile Composite Materials, Institute of Composite Materials, Tiangong University, Tianjin 300387, China
3
AVIC Aerospace Life-Support Industries LTD, Xiangyang 441003, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polymers 2023, 15(5), 1170; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15051170
Submission received: 5 February 2023 / Revised: 18 February 2023 / Accepted: 22 February 2023 / Published: 25 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Polymer-Based Three-Dimensional (3D) Textile Composites)

Abstract

:
This paper studies the ballistic impact performance of 3D woven composites (3DWCs) with hexagonal binding patterns. Para-aramid/polyurethane (PU) 3DWCs with three kinds of fiber volume fraction (Vf) were prepared by compression resin transfer molding (CRTM). The effect of Vf on the ballistic impact behavior of the 3DWCs was analyzed by characterizing the ballistic limit velocity (V50), the specific energy absorption (SEA), the energy absorption per thickness (Eh), the damage morphology and the damage area. 1.1 g fragment-simulating projectiles (FSPs) were used in the V50 tests. Based on the results, when the Vf increases from 63.4% to 76.2%, the V50, the SEA and the Eh increase by 3.5%, 18.5% and 28.8%, respectively. There are significant differences in damage morphology and damage area between partial penetration (PP) cases and complete penetration (CP) cases. In the PP cases, the back-face resin damage areas of the sample III composites were significantly increased to 213.4% of the sample I counterparts. The findings provide valuable information for the design of ballistic protection 3DWCs.

1. Introduction

In the last thirty years, para-aramid-fiber-reinforced polymer composites have been developed for ballistic protection applications due to their advantages of light weight, high strength, high modulus, high toughness and excellent energy absorption performance [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. The dominant fiber reinforcements have a unidirectional prepreg or a 2D woven laminated structure [10,11,12,13]. Various types of 3D woven composites (3DWCs) have been presented to overcome the shortcomings of laminates. The potential benefits of 3D woven reinforcements include reduced fabrication cost, improved impact resistance, greater design flexibility and superior though-thickness mechanical properties. These 3DWCs have impressive potential applications in bullet-proof vests, ballistic helmets, and other products related to high-velocity impact and military uses [14,15,16].
Min and Chen [17] investigated the effect of ply areal density on the ballistic performance of Twaron/Epoxy 3DWCs with a total areal density (AD) of 12 kg/m2 and a fiber volume fraction (Vf) of 55%. The findings indicated that reinforcements with larger ply areal density and a smaller number of plies suffered less ballistic damage. Chen [18] studied the ballistic impact energy absorption and damage morphology of 3DWCs using perforated ballistic tests and X-ray CT. The tests revealed that the 3DWCs exhibit a 3.3% energy absorption increase and a 65.3% delamination damage volume decrease compared to 2D plain composites at an equivalent AD. The mechanical and failure behavior under ballistic impact of Kevlar/carbon hybrid 3DWCs was investigated by Zheng [19]. The Vf values of the composites were from 52.3% to 57.25%. The results showed that the damage to the Kevlar layer was due to fiber fracture and pull-out, while in carbon layers, damage was caused by matrix cracking and brittle-fiber failure. Ha-Minh [20] studied the ballistic impact behavior of 3D woven preforms with an areal density of 1.66 kg/m2. In the fabric plane, the density of the warp yarns was 20 ends/cm and that of the weft yarns was 27.8 picks/cm. Fragment-simulating projectiles (FSPs) with a diameter of 5.45 mm and a weight of 1.11 g were used for the ballistic tests. The results showed that partial penetration (PP) occurred at an impact velocity of 306m/s and complete penetration (CP) occurred at an impact velocity of 400 m/s. Abtew [21,22] compared the ballistic performance of 2D plain fabric and 3D woven fabric panels according to NIJ standard-0101.06 Level-IIIA. The 3D woven fabric comprised 5-layer warp yarns and 6-layer weft yarns. All yarns were para-aramid (Twaron® 930dTex, Teijin Aramid, a subsidiary of Teijin Group, The Netherland.) with an areal density of 1 kg/m2. In the fabric plane, the total yarn density was 52.5 ends/cm for warp yarns and 52.5 picks/cm for weft yarns. Based on the results, 8 kg/m2 of 2D plain weave and corresponding 3D warp interlock fabric panels showed similar deformation and energy absorption capability. However, 6 kg/m2 of 2D plain fabric still showed good ballistic performance compared to its counterpart 3D warp interlock fabric [23]. The excellent mouldability enables the 3D woven flat preform to form a curved surface structure through the stamping method for items such as 3D woven female body armor and bulletproof helmets [24]. It is difficult to improve ballistic protective performance while maintaining moldability. To satisfy these two contradictory goals, Chen and Yang [25] compounded through-the-thickness angle-interlock and layer-to-layer orthogonal-interlock structures. The results showed that the ballistic performance of the compound preform was better than the through-the-thickness angle-interlock, and equivalent moldability could also be provided. Bandaru [26] studied the effect of the stacking method on the ballistic properties of Kevlar/polypropylene composites. The results showed that symmetrical stacking exhibited better ballistic penetration resistance, successfully resisting the impact of 9 mm full metal jacket (FMJ) projectiles with a velocity of 365–395 m/s. A large number of numerical studies have been carried out on 3D woven preforms and composites due to the complexity of the ballistic penetration process and the difficulty of capturing the internal damage phenomena [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. Gu and Sun [41,42] reported the ballistic impact damage to 3DWCs under penetration by a hemispherical rigid projectile using a multi-scale geometrical model of the 3DWCs and high-strain-rate constitutive equations for fibertows. Vf is a key parameter affecting the mechanical properties of fiber-reinforced composites. In the ballistic performance literature discussed above, the Vf of 3DWCs is often below 60% [43,44,45,46,47], but the Vf of UD/2D laminates for ballistic protection applications can reach 80% or more. The mechanism by which Vf affects the ballistic impact behavior of 3DWCs is still unclear and needs further study. In order to determine the relationship between ballistic performance and Vf, it is necessary to increase the Vf of 3DWCs, which is why the present study is necessary.
Combined with innovative reinforcement structure, para-aramid fabrics may provide more effective ballistic composites. In this paper, a 3D woven architecture with a hexagonal bonding pattern was designed and three kinds of 3DWCs with different Vf (up to 76.2%) were manufactured using a CRTM process. The effects of Vf on ballistic impact behavior of 3D woven para-aramid/PU composites against 1.1 g FSPs were investigated experimentally. In order to reveal the effects of Vf on the ballistic penetration resistance of the 3DWCs, the damage mechanisms of the 3DWCs were described by characterizing V50, SEA, Eh, damage morphology and damage area. These results provide further understanding and basis for the design of lightweight and efficient bulletproof 3D woven composite structures.

2. Materials and Testing Methods

2.1. Materials

2.1.1. 3D Woven Architecture

As shown in Figure 1a, a 3D woven architecture with a hexagonal bonding pattern was designed. This architecture consisted of 18 layers of warp yarns, 18 layers of binder yarns and 19 layers of weft yarns. The linear density of the warp yarns and weft yarns was the same, and was twice that of the binder yarns. The warp yarns and binder yarns were arranged in a 1:1 ratio. The front- and back-face weave patterns are shown in Figure 1b,c. The front face was mainly weft yarn floats, while the back face was mainly binder yarn floats. In this paper, the X, Y and Z directions represent the warp, weft and thickness directions of the 3D woven preform, respectively. The dashed black box is a representative unit along the X-Y plane. This architecture included four types of binder yarn, namely, B1, B2, B3 and B4, as shown in Figure 1d–g. The dashed red box is a representative unit along the X–Z plane. The Vf of the 3D woven architecture can be calculated according to the yarns of the three systems. Both warp and weft yarns were straight. The length of the curved segment of binder yarn can be calculated as shown in Figure 2.

2.1.2. Specimen Preparation

Tcparan® para-aramid yarns (Yantai Tayho Advanced Materials Co., Ltd., Yantai, China) (1110dtex) were selected to prepare the 3D woven preforms (3DWPs). In this paper, the 3DWPs were produced using a weaving loom developed at the Institute of Composite Materials of Tiangong University. According to ASTM D1777, the thickness (h) of a 3DWP is 12.4 mm. The specifications of the 3DWPs are shown in Table 1.
A two-component polyurethane resin system (PU) consisting of polyol and polymethylene polyphenylene isocyanate (mixed at a volume ratio of 100:73) was used. The mechanical properties of the Tcparan® yarns and PU are listed in Table 2. All 3DWCs were prepared using the compression resin transfer molding (CRTM) method. The details of specimen preparation are shown in Figure 3. The cavity size of the mold was 355 mm × 370 mm, and the radius of the four rounded corners was 30 mm. A mold photo is shown in Figure 3c. As shown in Figure 3a,b, the mold needs to be used with pressure equipment, which provides pressure and heating. In order to improve efficiency, it is necessary to create a vacuum of −0.1 MPa before resin injection. During the resin injection process, the compression pressure was set at 4–6 MPa, and the temperature of the resin and mold were maintained at 30 °C. The resin injection process adopted an equal-flow injection method (20 mL/min), which lasted about 20 min. Compression was carried out after the injection was completed. Different compression pressures need to be set for the preparation of different Vf composites. In this study, the preparation pressures were 6.5 MPa, 8 MPa and 15 MPa, respectively. The curing process of the PU infused panels is shown in Figure 3d. Figure 3f is a picture of the back face of a manufactured sample. Based on the requirements of GJB 4300A-2012 [49] for sample size, the manufactured sample was cut according to the scheme in Figure 3e, and a ballistic test sample with a size of 300 mm × 300 mm was obtained, as shown in Figure 3g. To study the effect of Vf on the ballistic impact behavior of the hexagonal bonding 3DWCs, three kinds of 3DWCs with different Vf were manufactured by compacting the preform according to the specifications shown in Table 3. The Vf of the 3DWC was obtained according to the weight and dimensions of the 3DWP, calculated using Equation (1):
V f = 10 3 × M f ρ f × L x × L y × H × 100 %
where M f is the mass of the 3DWP (g); ρ f is the density of the para-aramid fiber (g/cm3); and L x , L y and H are the length, width and thickness of the 3DWC, respectively (mm).

2.2. Ballistic Impact Tests

For the ballistic impact tests, the standard test method GJB 4300A-2012 (Requirements of safety technical performance for military body armor) was followed. As shown in Figure 4, the samples were placed 5 m from the tip of the gun muzzle, firmly tied to the backing material fixture. The projectiles are 45-steel 17-grain (1.1 g) 0.22 caliber FSPs, with a diameter of 5.38 mm, a height of 6.35 mm, and a surface hardness of HRC29 ± 2. The projectiles were fired from a special 7.62 mm caliber fragment firing barrel and hit the target at a 90° incidence. All the ballistic tests presented in this paper were performed in the Quality Test Center for Special Protective Clothing of the CPLA (Chinese People’s Liberation Army).
V50 is the velocity at which, using a given projectile and target material, the estimated probability of perforation is 0.5. According to GJB 4300A-2012, V50 is calculated using the following method: an even number (at least six) shots are used for the calculation. Half of the shots must perforate the target material (complete penetration (CP)). Half of the shots must not perforate (partial penetration (PP)) the target material. The highest recorded velocity of the group (half PPs and half CPs) must not be more than 38 m/s higher than the lowest of the group. The measurement is the arithmetic mean of the group of velocities. The impact velocity of the projectile is calculated based on the time it passes through two timers with a constant distance. There is a velocity attenuation of bullet velocity from the timer to sample, so V50 can be obtained by subtracting the attenuation velocity from the velocity measuring point to the target sample.

2.3. Characterization of Damage Morphology

A 3D contour measurement instrument (KEYENCE VR-5200, Osaka, Japan) was used to extract the damage area around the impact point on the sample surface, including the damage area and shape of the front and back of the target and the residual deformation height on the back of the target.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Ballistic Test Results

V50 is calculated based on Equations (2)–(4):
V 50 = V ¯ Δ V
where V ¯ is the average velocity of the effective FSP at the speed measurement point (m/s), and Δ V is the velocity attenuation of the FSP from the speed measurement point to the target (m/s).
V ¯ = 1 n V i n
where V i is the velocity of the i round effective FSP at the speed measurement point (m/s), and n is the number of rounds with effective FSP velocity at the speed measurement point.
Δ V = C 43 10 X Δ D ( V )
where C 43 is the ballistic coefficient of the FSP, X is the distance from the speed measurement point to the target (m), and Δ D ( V ) is the increment of the Siacci function, which can be obtained from the Siacci function table according to the V value.
V50 and the effective FSP velocity at the speed measurement point of the three kinds of 3DWCs are shown in Figure 5. It was observed that sample III (Vf = 76.2%) showed the best response. However, the V50 values for sample I (Vf = 63.4%) and sample II (Vf = 67.0%) are almost equal. A concrete conclusion cannot be drawn merely by comparing the V50 values. The areal density (AD) and the thickness are two important parameters of the 3DWCs. Therefore, energy absorption capability was further examined using the specific absorption energy (SEA) and energy absorption per unit thickness (Eh), which can be calculated using Equations (5)–(7).

3.2. Energy Absorption Capability of 3DWCs

The energy absorbed by the V50 test (EV50) can be calculated using Equation (5):
E V 50 = 1 2 m ( V 50 ) 2
where m is the mass of the FSP (kg).
SEA can be computed using Equation (6):
S E A = E V 50 A D
where A D is the areal density of the 3DWC sample (kg/m2).
Eh can be computed using Equation (7):
E h = E V 50 h
where h is the thickness of the 3DWC sample (mm).
It can be seen from Figure 6 that Vf has a significant effect on the V50 and SEA values of fiber composites. Moreover, the V50 and SEA of the 3DWCs with hexagonal binding pattern designed in this study are almost twice that of the hybrid 3DWCs and 2D laminates. Therefore, the 3DWCs with hexagonal binding pattern have obvious advantages in improving the ballistic limit and specific energy absorption of composites.
Combining Figure 6a and Figure 7, it can be seen that when Vf increases from 63.4% to 76.2% (an increase of 20.2%), both the AD and the thickness decrease significantly, by 9.6% and 17.2%, respectively. Meanwhile, SEA and Eh increases by 18.3% and 28.5%, respectively. To sum up, the increase in Vf not only helps to reduce the AD and thickness of the 3DWCs, but also significantly improves the energy absorption performance of the 3DWCs. During the design of ballistic protection armor, weight should be taken into as much consideration as ballistic performance. Therefore, it is of great significance to improve Vf for the design of lightweight and high-strength bulletproof 3DWCs.

3.3. Damage Morphology and Damage Area of 3DWCs

It can be seen in Figure 8 that the main failure modes of the impact surfaces of the 3DWCs are fiber breakage and matrix cracking. We statistically analyzed the fiber and resin damage areas; the results are shown in Figure 9. On the front surface, partial penetration (PP) and complete penetration (CP) samples have similarly shaped bullet holes, namely, an ellipse with an approximate long axis along the weft yarn direction (Y-direction). In the PP samples, the fiber damage area is larger than that of the CP samples. This because in the PP samples, more fibers are involved in energy dissipation to capture the FSP, so the area of fiber damage is larger. With the increase in Vf, the damage area of the PP samples shows an increasing trend. This is because the increase in Vf means a decrease in resin volume content (Vr), which leads to a decrease in constraint on the fiber, resulting in an increase in the fiber damage area.
Statistics for the fiber damage areas and resin damage areas on the back faces of the tested panels are shown in Figure 10. Combined with Figure 8 and Figure 9, the figure shows that the area of fiber damage on the back face is only slightly larger than that on the front. This shows that the energy dissipation mode of the 3DWCs is mainly shearing when CP occurs. In the case of PP, the resin damage area on the back face is much larger than on the front face. This indicates that the failure mode in PP is more complex. In regard to the energy dissipation mechanism, the front face is dominated by fiber and resin shearing, while the back face includes resin cracking, fiber-resin interface damage, fiber tensile deformation and fracture. The resin damage area on the back face in CP is much smaller than that in PP. Therefore, it can be said that the increase in the damage resin area on the back face is helpful to improve the protective performance of 3DWCs. With the increase of Vf, the resin damage area on the back face of the 3DWCs shows a significant upward trend. Therefore, the increase in Vf helps to increase the amount of fibers and resin involved in energy dissipation by increasing the damage area on the back side, thus contributing to the improvement of ballistic protection performance.
Figure 11 shows the height variation of the different regions on the back face of the 3DWCs obtained by 3D contour scanning. There are obvious differences between the PP case and the CP case. The height variation for CP was concentrated in an area with a diameter of 10–20 mm centered on the shooting point. The PP case shows a height cloud map approximating concentric circles. With the increase of Vf, the range of the height variation area shows an increasing trend. In addition, the near-circular height map shows that the 3DWP structures have similar longitudinal-latitudinal bearing capacity. The 3DWP structure helps the fibers of each component jointly bear and dissipate the kinetic energy of the FSP so as to show a nearly in-plane isotropic ballistic effect.
Figure 12 shows a cross-sectional diagram of representative shooting points in PP: (a) Y–Z cross section of sample I; (b) X–Z cross section of sample I; (c) Y–Z cross section of sample II; (d) X–Z cross section of sample II; (e) Y–Z cross section of sample III; (f) X–Z cross section of sample III. The X, Y and Z values represent BFS dimensions along the warp, weft and thickness directions, respectively. The Y–Z and X–Z curves are the contours of the BFS along the warp and weft directions. The areas enclosed by the BFS contour curve and coordinate axes are represented by SYZ and SXZ, respectively. The statistical results of these parameters are shown in Figure 13. It can be seen that SYZ is always larger than SXZ, and the deformation span in the weft direction is always larger than the warp direction. In all three kinds of 3DWCs, when Vf, X, and Y increase, SYZ and SXZ both increase.

4. Conclusions

In this paper, a 3D woven preform with hexagonal binding pattern was designed for the first time. This architecture not only has a high in-plain fiber content, but also has a high degree of orientation due to the low number of interlacings and through-layers of the binding yarns. Para-aramid/PU 3DWCs with three kinds of Vf were prepared using the CRTM method. This molding method helped to straighten the 3DWCs fibers and further improved Vf to 76.2%. In ballistic tests, the effect of Vf on the ballistic performance of the 3DWCs against 1.1 g FSPs was studied. Based on the test results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
  • Vf was the key factor affecting the V50 value of the 3DWCs. The ballistic results showed that when Vf increased from 63.4% to 76.2%, V50 still increased by 3.5% even when the thickness and AD decreased by 17.2% and 19.6%, respectively.
  • The fiber and resin damage of the impact surface of the 3DWCs occurred in a small area centered on the shooting point, and the damage area was about 1.5~3 times the area of the projectile. With an increase in Vf, the damage area on the impact surface was slightly increased due to the lower resin content, which weakened the restraint of the resin on the fibers.
  • When Vf was 63.4%, stiffness of the 3DWCs was high and deformation occurred only in a small area. When Vf was increased to 76.2%, the deformation area significantly increased (by 213.4%), more fiber participated in energy dissipation, and SEA and Eh increased by 18.5% and 28.8%, respectively.
The findings of this study provide valuable information for the engineering design and manufacture of 3D woven ballistic composites with higher protection ability. Further studies will be conducted to improve the fiber volume content of 3D woven composites, including more experimental work and numerical modelling.

Author Contributions

All authors listed on this paper have contributed to this study. Conceptualization, L.C., G.Z. and J.X.; methodology, L.C. and G.Z.; investigation, X.S.; writing—original draft preparation, X.S.; writing—review and editing, Y.S. and C.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Tianjin Natural Science Foundation grant number 19JCYBJC18300.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the ballistic impact test facilities of the “Quality Test Center of Special Protective Clothing of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army” located in Beijing, China, for the help of its crew members while testing the armor systems. The authors would also like to thank Bo Zhu, of the School of Materials Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, China, for his support with the pressure equipment. The authors acknowledge the support of the Defense Science and Technology Base Strengthening Program of China. The authors wish to thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments on this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abtew, M.A.; Boussu, F.; Bruniaux, P.; Liu, H. Fabrication and Mechanical Characterization of Dry Three-Dimensional Warp Interlock Para-Aramid Woven Fabrics: Experimental Methods toward Applications in Composite Reinforcement and Soft Body Armor. Materials 2020, 13, 4233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Zhang, T.G.; Satapathy, S.S.; Vargas-Gonzalez, L.R.; Walsh, S.M. Ballistic impact response of Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE). Compos. Struct. 2015, 133, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Karthikeyan, K.; Russell, B.P.; Fleck, N.A.; Wadley, H.N.G.; Deshpande, V.S. The effect of shear strength on the ballistic response of laminated composite plates. Eur. J. Mech.—A/Solids 2013, 42, 35–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhu, Z.; Li, X.; Yang, R.; Ye, Z.; Teng, Q. A modified model to predict the ballistic limit of a cubic fragment penetrating Kevlar/titanium fiber metal laminate. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2022, 168, 104292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wang, H.; Hazell, P.J.; Shankar, K.; Morozov, E.V.; Escobedo, J.P. Impact behaviour of Dyneema ® fabric-reinforced composites with different resin matrices. Polym. Test. 2017, 61, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. O’Masta, M.R.; Russell, B.P.; Ronan, W. Inter-ply angle influence on the out-of-plane compressive response of polyethylene fibre laminates. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2018, 110, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hu, P.; Yang, H.; Zhang, P.; Wang, W.; Liu, J.; Cheng, Y. Experimental and numerical investigations into the ballistic performance of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fiber-reinforced laminates. Compos. Struct. 2022, 290, 115499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhang, R.; Han, B.; Zhong, J.-Y.; Qiang, L.-S.; Ni, C.-Y.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, Q.-C.; Li, B.-C.; Lu, T.J. Enhanced ballistic resistance of multilayered cross-ply UHMWPE laminated plates. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2022, 159, 104035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kumar, A.M.; Parameshwaran, R.; Kumar, P.S.; Pal, S.K.; Prasath, M.M.; Krishnaraj, V.; Rajasekar, R. Effects of abaca fiber reinforcement on the dynamic mechanical behavior of vinyl ester composites. Mech. Test. 2017, 59, 555–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Abtew, M.A.; Boussu, F.; Bruniaux, P.; Loghin, C.; Cristian, I. Ballistic impact mechanisms—A review on textiles and fibre-reinforced composites impact responses. Compos. Struct. 2019, 223, 110966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, Y.; Fan, H.; Gao, X.-L. Ballistic helmets: Recent advances in materials, protection mechanisms, performance, and head injury mitigation. Compos. Part B Eng. 2022, 238, 109890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. He, Y.; Jiao, Y.; Zhou, J.Q.; Lei, H.; Jia, N.; Chen, L.; Zhang, D. Ballistic response of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene laminate impacted by mild steel core projectiles. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2022, 169, 104338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hamouda, A.M.S.; Sohaimi, R.M.; Zaidi, A.M.A.; Abdullah, S. Materials and design issues for military helmets. In Advances in Military Textiles and Personal Equipment; Sparks, E., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2012; pp. 103–138. [Google Scholar]
  14. Min, S.; Chen, X.; Chai, Y.; Lowe, T. Effect of reinforcement continuity on the ballistic performance of composites reinforced with multiply plain weave fabric. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 90, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ha-Minh, C.; Boussu, F.; Kanit, T.; Crépin, D.; Imad, A. Analysis on failure mechanisms of an interlock woven fabric under ballistic impact. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2011, 18, 2179–2187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ha-Minh, C.; Boussu, F.; Kanit, T.; Crépin, D.; Imad, A. Effect of Frictions on the Ballistic Performance of a 3D Warp Interlock Fabric: Numerical Analysis. Appl. Compos. Mater. 2011, 19, 333–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Min, S.; Chai, Y.; Chu, Y.; Chen, X. Effect of Panel Construction on the Ballistic Performance of Multiply 3D through-the-Thickness Angle-Interlock fabrIc Reinforced Composites. Polymers 2019, 11, 198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Min, S.; Chen, X. Study on the Ballistic Performance of Multiply Wadded Through-the-thickness Angle-interlock Fabric Reinforced Composites. Appl. Compos. Mater. 2021, 29, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ahmed, S.; Zheng, X.; Yan, L.; Zhang, C.; Wang, X. Influence of asymmetric hybridization on impact response of 3D orthogonal woven composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2020, 199, 108326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ha-Minh, C.; Imad, A.; Boussu, F.; Kanit, T. Experimental and numerical investigation of a 3D woven fabric subjected to a ballistic impact. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2016, 88, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Abtew, M.A.; Boussu, F.; Bruniaux, P.; Loghin, C.; Cristian, I. Engineering of 3D warp interlock p-aramid fabric structure and its energy absorption capabilities against ballistic impact for body armour applications. Compos. Struct. 2019, 225, 111179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Abtew, M.A.; Bruniaux, P.; Boussu, F.; Loghin, C.; Cristian, I.; Chen, Y.; Wang, L. A systematic pattern generation system for manufacturing customized seamless multi-layer female soft body armour through dome-formation (moulding) techniques using 3D warp interlock fabrics. J. Manuf. Syst. 2018, 49, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, D.; Sun., Y.; Chen., L.; Zhang., S.; Pan., N. Influence of fabric structure and thickness on the ballistic impact behavior of Ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene composite laminate. Mater. Des. 2014, 54, 315–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Abtew, M.A.; Boussu, F.; Bruniaux, P.; Hong, Y. Dynamic Impact Surface Damage Analysis of 3D Woven Para-Aramid Armour Panels Using NDI Technique. Polymers 2021, 13, 877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Yang, D.; Wei, Q.; Xin, B.; Chen, X. Research on the creation of TA/LOI compound structure fabric and its ballistic performance for 3D curved-surface ballistic application. Compos. Part B Eng. 2020, 201, 108275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bandaru, A.K.; Ahmad, S.; Bhatnagar, N. Ballistic impact performance of hybrid thermoplastic composite armors reinforced with2D/3D Kevlar and basalt fabrics. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2017, 97, 151–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, Y.; Chen, X.; Young, R.; Kinloch, I.; Wells, G. A numerical study of ply orientation on ballistic impact resistance of multi-ply fabric panels. Compos. Part B Eng. 2015, 68, 259–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Goda, I.; Girardot, J. A computational framework for energy absorption and damage assessment of laminated composites under ballistic impact and new insights into target parameters. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2021, 115, 106835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chen, X.; Zhou, Y.; Wells, G. Numerical and experimental investigations into ballistic performance of hybrid fabric panels. Compos. Part B Eng. 2014, 58, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bandaru, A.K.; Vetiyatil, L.; Ahmad, S. The effect of hybridization on the ballistic impact behavior of hybrid composite armors. Compos. Part B Eng. 2015, 76, 300–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mousavi, M.V.; Khoramishad, H. Investigation of energy absorption in hybridized fiber-reinforced polymer composites under high-velocity impact loading. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2020, 146, 103692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yang, Y.; Chen, X. Study of energy absorption and failure modes of constituent layers in body armour panels. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 98, 250–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nilakantan, G.; Gillespie, J.W. Ballistic impact modeling of woven fabrics considering yarn strength, friction, projectile impact location, and fabric boundary condition effects. Compos. Struct. 2012, 94, 3624–3634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liu, B.G.; Wadley, H.N.G.; Deshpande, V.S. Failure mechanism maps for ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fibre composite beams impacted by blunt projectiles. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2019, 178, 180–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chen, X.; Zhu, F.; Wells, G. An analytical model for ballistic impact on textile based body armour. Compos. Part B Eng. 2013, 45, 1508–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mamivand, M.; Liaghat, G.H. A model for ballistic impact on multi-layer fabric targets. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2010, 37, 806–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chocron, S.; Figueroa, E.; King, N.; Kirchdoerfer, T.; Nicholls, A.E.; Sagebiel, E.; Weiss, C.; Freitas, C.J. Modeling and validation of full fabric targets under ballistic impact. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2010, 70, 2012–2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rodriguez-Millan, M.; Ito, T.; Loya, J.A.; Olmedo, A.; Miguelez, M.H. Development of numerical model for ballistic resistance evaluation of combat helmet and experimental validation. Mater. Des. 2016, 110, 391–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Ramakrishnan, S.; Krishnamurthy, K.; Prasath, M.M.; Kumar, R.S.; Dharmaraj, M.; Gowthaman, K.; Kumar, P.S.; Rajasekar, R. Theoretical Prediction on the Mechanical Behavior of Natural Fiber Reinforced Vinyl Ester Composites. Appl. Sci. Adv. Mater. Int. 2015, 1, 85–92. [Google Scholar]
  40. Tripathi, L.; Chowdhury, S.; Behera, B.K. Modeling and simulation of impact behavior of 3D woven solid structure for ballistic application. J. Ind. Text. 2020, 51, 6065S–6086S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wei, Q.; Gu, B.; Sun, B. Ballistic penetration damages and energy absorptions of stacked cross-plied composite fabrics and laminated panels. Int. J. Damage Mech. 2020, 29, 1465–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Luan, K.; Sun, B.; Gu, B. Ballistic impact damages of 3-D angle-interlock woven composites based on high strain rate constitutive equation of fiber tows. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2013, 57, 145–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tong, L.; Mouritz, A.P.; Bannister, M.K. 3D Fibre Reinforced Polymer Composites; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 13–46. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ma, P.; Jin, L.; Wu, L. Experimental and numerical comparisons of ballistic impact behaviors between 3D angle-interlock woven fabric and its reinforced composite. J. Ind. Text. 2018, 48, 1044–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dong, F.; Yuan, Q.; Liu, J.; Qian, K.; Sun, J.; Zhang, D. Impact behaviors and damage mechanisms of 2.5D woven composites: Experiment and simulation. J. Ind. Text. 2022, 52, 15280837221114631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zahid, B.; Chen, X. Properties of 5-layer angle-interlock Kevlar-based composite structure manufactured from vacuum bagging. J. Compos. Mater. 2012, 47, 3227–3234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhang, Y.; Guo, Q.; Chen, X.; Xie, J.; Chen, L. Effect of apertures on tensile property of warp-reinforced 2.5D woven composites notched plates. Compos. Struct. 2020, 252, 112693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Huang, L. Determining Micro- and Macro- Geometry of Fabric and Fabric Reinforced Composites; Kansas State University: Manhattan, KS, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  49. GJB 4300A-2012; Requirements of Safety Technical Performance for Military Body Armor. GJB Professional Standard-Military: Beijing, China, 2012.
  50. Muñoz, R.; Martínez-Hergueta, F.; Gálvez, F.; González, C.; Llorca, J. Ballistic performance of hybrid 3D woven composites: Experiments and simulations. Compos. Struct. 2015, 127, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. 3D woven architecture with hexagonal bonding pattern: (a) isometric drawing; (b) front face; (c) back face; (d) binder yarn B1; (e) binder yarn B2; (f) binder yarn B3; (g) binder yarn B4.
Figure 1. 3D woven architecture with hexagonal bonding pattern: (a) isometric drawing; (b) front face; (c) back face; (d) binder yarn B1; (e) binder yarn B2; (f) binder yarn B3; (g) binder yarn B4.
Polymers 15 01170 g001
Figure 2. Method for calculating length of curved segment of binder yarn [48].
Figure 2. Method for calculating length of curved segment of binder yarn [48].
Polymers 15 01170 g002
Figure 3. Details of specimen preparation: (ac) pressure equipment and mold; (d) curing process of two-component polyurethane resin system; (e) cutting scheme; (f) manufactured sample; (g) cut sample.
Figure 3. Details of specimen preparation: (ac) pressure equipment and mold; (d) curing process of two-component polyurethane resin system; (e) cutting scheme; (f) manufactured sample; (g) cut sample.
Polymers 15 01170 g003
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of ballistic limit V50 test system.
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of ballistic limit V50 test system.
Polymers 15 01170 g004
Figure 5. Results of ballistic impact tests, Vs*-Vf and V50*-Vf. (Note: Both Vs* and V50* are normalized with the corresponding values of sample I.).
Figure 5. Results of ballistic impact tests, Vs*-Vf and V50*-Vf. (Note: Both Vs* and V50* are normalized with the corresponding values of sample I.).
Polymers 15 01170 g005
Figure 6. Experimental results of impact tests: (a) relationship between normalized performance (SEA* and AD*) and Vf; (b) relationship between normalized performance (V50* and SEA*) and Vf. (Note: V50*, SEA* and AD* are normalized with the corresponding values of sample I.) [50].
Figure 6. Experimental results of impact tests: (a) relationship between normalized performance (SEA* and AD*) and Vf; (b) relationship between normalized performance (V50* and SEA*) and Vf. (Note: V50*, SEA* and AD* are normalized with the corresponding values of sample I.) [50].
Polymers 15 01170 g006
Figure 7. Experimental results of impact tests, Eh*-Vf and h*-Vf. (Note: Eh* and h* are normalized with the corresponding values of sample I).
Figure 7. Experimental results of impact tests, Eh*-Vf and h*-Vf. (Note: Eh* and h* are normalized with the corresponding values of sample I).
Polymers 15 01170 g007
Figure 8. Fiber/resin damage morphology of composite panel after ballistic tests of front face: (a1)−(a3) PP-F of sample I; (a4)−(a6) CP-F of sample I; (b1)−(b3) PP-F of sample II; (b4)−(b6) CP-F of sample II; (c1)−(c3) PP-F of sample III; (c4)−(c6) CP-F of sample III. (PP-F: front face of partially penetrated panel; CP-F: front face of completely penetrated panel.)
Figure 8. Fiber/resin damage morphology of composite panel after ballistic tests of front face: (a1)−(a3) PP-F of sample I; (a4)−(a6) CP-F of sample I; (b1)−(b3) PP-F of sample II; (b4)−(b6) CP-F of sample II; (c1)−(c3) PP-F of sample III; (c4)−(c6) CP-F of sample III. (PP-F: front face of partially penetrated panel; CP-F: front face of completely penetrated panel.)
Polymers 15 01170 g008
Figure 9. Fiber/resin damage area of composite panel after ballistic test of front face.
Figure 9. Fiber/resin damage area of composite panel after ballistic test of front face.
Polymers 15 01170 g009
Figure 10. Fiber/resin damage areas of samples after ballistic test of back face.
Figure 10. Fiber/resin damage areas of samples after ballistic test of back face.
Polymers 15 01170 g010
Figure 11. 3D profiler scan results for back-face damage morphology of the composite panel samples: (a1)−(a3) PP-B of sample I; (a4)−(a6) CP-B of sample I; (b1)−(b3) PP-B of sample II; (b4)−(b6) CP-B of sample II; (c1)−(c3) PP-B of sample III; (c4)−(c6) CP-B of sample III. (PP-B: back face for partial penetration; CP-B: back face for complete penetration).
Figure 11. 3D profiler scan results for back-face damage morphology of the composite panel samples: (a1)−(a3) PP-B of sample I; (a4)−(a6) CP-B of sample I; (b1)−(b3) PP-B of sample II; (b4)−(b6) CP-B of sample II; (c1)−(c3) PP-B of sample III; (c4)−(c6) CP-B of sample III. (PP-B: back face for partial penetration; CP-B: back face for complete penetration).
Polymers 15 01170 g011
Figure 12. Cross-sectional diagram of representative shooting points in PP: (a) Y–Z cross section of sample I; (b) X–Z cross section of sample I; (c) Y–Z cross section of sample II; (d) X–Z cross section of sample II; (e) Y–Z cross section of sample III; (f) X–Z cross section of sample III.
Figure 12. Cross-sectional diagram of representative shooting points in PP: (a) Y–Z cross section of sample I; (b) X–Z cross section of sample I; (c) Y–Z cross section of sample II; (d) X–Z cross section of sample II; (e) Y–Z cross section of sample III; (f) X–Z cross section of sample III.
Polymers 15 01170 g012
Figure 13. Statistical results for damage range span and damage areas.
Figure 13. Statistical results for damage range span and damage areas.
Polymers 15 01170 g013
Table 1. Specifications of the 3DWP.
Table 1. Specifications of the 3DWP.
ParameterValue
Number of warp yarn layers18
Number of weft yarn layers19
Number of binder yarn layers18
Warp yarn density per layer (ends/cm)8
Weft yarn density per layer (picks/cm)10
Binder yarn density per layer (ends/cm)8
Warp yarn linear density (dtex)1100 × 2
Weft yarn linear density (dtex)1100 × 2
Binder yarn linear density (dtex)1100
h (mm)12.4
Table 2. Mechanical properties of Tcparan® yarns and PU matrix.
Table 2. Mechanical properties of Tcparan® yarns and PU matrix.
MaterialsDensity(g/cm3)Young’s Modulus (GPa)Tensile Strength (GPa)Elongation at Break (%)
Tcparan® yarns1.44973.4253.75
PU1.203.40.085>5
Table 3. Specifications of 3DWCs.
Table 3. Specifications of 3DWCs.
SampleAD (kg/m2)Vf (%)Mf (%)H (mm)
I12.563.472.79.9
II11.867.076.99.3
III11.376.280.48.2
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shi, X.; Sun, Y.; Xu, J.; Chen, L.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, G. Effect of Fiber Fraction on Ballistic Impact Behavior of 3D Woven Composites. Polymers 2023, 15, 1170. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15051170

AMA Style

Shi X, Sun Y, Xu J, Chen L, Zhang C, Zhang G. Effect of Fiber Fraction on Ballistic Impact Behavior of 3D Woven Composites. Polymers. 2023; 15(5):1170. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15051170

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shi, Xiaoping, Ying Sun, Jing Xu, Li Chen, Ce Zhang, and Guoli Zhang. 2023. "Effect of Fiber Fraction on Ballistic Impact Behavior of 3D Woven Composites" Polymers 15, no. 5: 1170. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15051170

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop