Composite Structures 67 (2005) 263277

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Performance of long ber reinforced thermoplastics subjected

to transverse intermediate velocity blunt object impact
S.D. Bartus, U.K. Vaidya *

Department of Materials Science and Engineering, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294-4461, USA

Available online 27 August 2004

Abstract

An understanding of long ber reinforced thermoplastic (LFT) behavior while undergoing high energy, high strain rate impact is
essential in promoting its use in automotive and other markets. In this work, damage tolerance of polypropylene (PP)/E-glass LFTs
subjected to transverse blunt object impact (BOI) was investigated, treated from an experimental standpoint, in order to characterize
energy dissipation and damage modes. LFT subjected to BOI exhibited high impact energy dissipation, which increased linearly with
increasing areal density. The average impact energy dissipation at the critical velocity (ballistic limit) was 167 J and 121 J for a
4.61 g cm
2 specimen impacted by at and conically shaped projectiles, respectively. The ber orientation also played a large role
in energy dissipation; failure appeared to occur along planes of preferential ber orientation. The critical energy for specimen per-
foration did not vary with the mass of the impactor, i.e. strain rate, in the range investigated. This overall work advances the state-
of-the-art in LFTs with an automotive focus.

2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Automotive composites; Impact; Thermoplastic composites

1. Introduction United States market for such materials is in excess of

1.1. Thermoplastic composites
The use of thermoplastic composites has gained stea-
dy favor over traditional materials such as steel in struc-
tural and semi-structural applications due to the
prominent physical and mechanical behavior of these
materials such as specic strength, damping, corrosion
resistance, and impact properties. Moreover, closed
molded discontinuous LFT composites share the attrac-
tive features of possessing greater strength, stiness and
impact properties in contrast to short ber reinforced
thermoplastics, in addition to high volume processabil-
ity, ability to ll complex geometries, intrinsic recyclabil-
ity, and the capacity for part integration. The current
* than 4 mm (before ber length degradation during
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 205 934 9199; fax: +1 205 934
8485.
E-mail address: uvaidya@uab.edu (U.K. Vaidya).
4.54 108 kg per annum, half of which is consumed by
the automotive industry [1]. Long Fiber reinforced
Thermoplastic (LFT) composites have one of the high-
est growth rates in the polymer material areas, sustain-
ing a projected 30% growth from 2000 to 2004 [2].
Thermoplastic composites typically comprise a cost
eective commodity matrix such as PP, polyethylene
(PE), nylon, etc.; reinforced with glass, carbon, or ara-
mid bers. E-glass is the most common reinforcement
since the automotive market niche is driven more by
cost/performance ratio than weight/performance ratio
as demanded by the aerospace industry.
Thermoplastic composites used in these applications
can be short ber reinforced thermoplastic (SFRT),
glass mat thermoplastic (GMT), or LFT. Injection
molded SFRT composites with starting ber lengths less
processing) are currently the most prevalent of the afore-
mentioned composites. However, the full advantage of

0263-8223/$ - see front matter
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2004.07.023
264 S.D. Bartus, U.K. Vaidya / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 263277
the reinforcing ber is not realized due to the low ber
aspect ratio. Injection molded LFTs also suer from
excessive ber length degradation in the plastication
and injection stages. In addition, diculties arise in
processing components with high ber content and
starting ber lengths in excess of 13 mm due to the high
melt viscosity.
The large ber aspect ratio of LFTs fully takes
advantage of the ber strength in contrast to its short
ber counterpart. Injection, injection-compression and
extrusion-compression molding techniques are em-
ployed for LFT processing. Starting LFT ber lengths
are typically greater than 13 mm and depend on the de-
sired properties, ber concentration, and processing
technique. LFTs oer several advantages in contrast to
GMTs such as: the possibility to work without semi-n-
ished mats (e.g., in-line extrusion) making it less labor
intensive, and lower compression forces due to a de-
crease in melt viscosity, which results in capital cost sav-
ings in tooling and machinery. Moreover, LFTs oer
higher surface quality, less part rejection due to an in-
crease in the ability to ll complex features and inte-
grated recyclability. Another advantage is greater
freedom in choosing ber and matrix materials.
In the compression molding process, bers develop in
plane orientations during ow, which can plague the
consolidated component. Preferential orientation during
compression molding can reduce strength and stiness
in critical areas and will induce warping through aniso-
tropic contraction upon cooling [3]. Although large ber
aspect ratios and high ber loading decrease ber mobil-
ity in the melt thereby decreasing the degree of preferen-
tial orientation, a high degree of preferential orientation
may still occur depending on mold geometry, charge
location, and preorientation of the bers in the charge.
This is described in detail in previous work using nite
element methods to simulate the compression molding
process with CADpress-Thermoplastic [4].
As the use of LFTs grows in automotive and other
industries, the need to determine impact response of
these materials increases to ensure the safety and stabil-
ity of designed structures [5]. LFT was recently em-
ployed for the underside belly pan of Daimler
Chryslers PT Cruiser [2]. Sheet molding compound
(SMC), was rst used in this application. However, it
proved too brittle since the component needed to be
exible and withstand impact from stones and other ob-
jects [2]. Few authors have attempted to characterize the
impact performance of discontinuous, randomly ori-
ented LFT thermoplastics.
The ber architectures inherent in LFTs make an
accurate characterization of the failure mechanisms
complex. Most eorts in understanding the impact per-
formance and failure mechanisms of LFTs have prima-
rily focused on Charpy and Izod impact testing, and to
an even lesser degree, low velocity drop tower impact
testing [6]. Very little work has looked into the eect
of intermediate velocity blunt object impact (BOI) on
LFTs. Intermediate velocities are greater than low veloc-
ity drop tower impacts or pendulum type impacts
(10 m s
1), yet slower than high velocity ballistic type im-
pacts. The velocity range for this purpose simulates the
eect of blunt objects such as rocks and debris traveling
at highway speeds for automotive applications as well as
impact induced by debris from hurricanes and tornadoes
for storm shelter and military housing applications. This
work can also be extended to transverse loaded energy
dissipation under high stain-rate for automobile crash
mitigation purposes.
1.2. Discontinuous long ber reinforcement
Traditional processing of LFT starts by rst hot melt
impregnating a tow of reinforcing bers with a thermo-
plastic matrix and subsequently chopping the continu-
ous tow into pellets of a set length. Hot melt
impregnation is done by wirecoating, cross-head extru-
sion, or thermoplastic pultrusion techniques [7]. The
LFT pellets are then fed into a single-screw plasticator
where they are fed down the barrel by the screw, heated
above the melting point of the matrix, and extruded as a
charge (shot). The shot is then placed on a tool and
compression molded.
Extrusion/compression molding of LFT has rapidly
been gaining favor over traditional injection molding
(especially with in-line compounding) and GMT com-
pression molding techniques due to superior mechanical
properties at a comparable cost [8]. The ber aspect
ratio, dened as the length to diameter ratio, dierenti-
ates short ber from long ber reinforcement. The
aspect ratio of a long ber is typically an order of mag-
nitude greater than that of a short ber [9]. While short
ber reinforced thermoplastics realize substantial gains
in mechanical properties over that of the neat material,
the full potential of the reinforcement is not obtained
because the ber is below a critical length. The critical
ber length is given in Eq. (1):
rmax r
Lc 1
s
where Lc is the critical ber length, r is the ber radius,
rmax is the tensile stress acting on the ber, and s is the
interfacial shear strength [10].
This equation is based on the several simplifying
assumptions, rst of which is that the strain to failure
for the ber is less than that of the matrix. This is a rea-
sonable assumption in the case of thermoplastic matri-
ces. A shortcoming of this equation is that it assumes
the interfacial shear stress in constant over the ber
length. It has been shown that bers produce higher
stresses at the ber tips resulting in a lower elongation
to failure [11].
 S.D. Bartus, U.K. Vaidya / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 263277
Assuming that below the critical ber length, the
force required for debonding increases linearly with ber
length, the interfacial shear strength can be determined
from the slope of the load required for pullout vs. ber
length. Above the critical ber length, sucient interfa-
cial shear stress exists for ber breakage to occur. Sub-
sequent micromechanical models for tensile strength,
tensile modulus, and transverse notched impact strength
based on bers above and below the critical length can
be found in Refs. [4,6,7].
1.3. Categorization of impact
A considerable amount of work has gone into study-
ing transverse impact on composite structures [1219].
The authors of the studies in [1219] have focused pri-
marily on continuous ber composites with thermoset
matrices. Research in thermoplastic matrices has mainly
been limited to poly ether ether ketone (PEEK), prima-
rily relevant for aerospace applications.
Most of the literature on impact response of thermo-
plastics pertains to either Charpy and Izod tests or low
or high velocity impact [46]. Charpy and Izod, pendu-
lum test congurations, are constrained in terms of spec-
imen size, impact direction, and boundary conditions
[5]. Moreover, Charpy and Izod testing, especially in
the notched conguration, force the specimen to fail at
a predetermined area rather than along the weakest
plane. This could skew results because of the highly
anisotropic nature of LFTs. The velocity range, impac-
tor geometry and, impactor mass should reect the type
of threats a component may encounter in service. In this
case, a more representative test would be in the interme-
diate velocity range with a blunt object impactor. This
would simulate the eect of stones and other debris a
vehicle might encounter at highway speeds. In addition,
the importance of this test methodology lies not only in
the characterization of debris hits, but also energy dissi-
pation and failure mechanisms under high loading rate.
The denition of the terms low, intermediate and
high velocity often varies in literature [12]. Some authors
contend that high velocity refers to conditions resulting
in complete perforation of the target. However, this phe-
nomenon can be readily observed in drop tower testing
in which the maximum obtainable velocity is typically
less than 10 m s
1. For the remainder of this paper, the
term low velocity will be reserved for velocities less than
10 m s
1 with large mass impactors and large target
deformations. The denition of high velocity impact will
follow that dened by Abrate [12] as the ratio between
the impactor velocity and the transverse compressive
wave velocity is greater than the maximum strain to fail-
ure in that direction. Damage induced by high velocity
impact is typically introduced by the rst few compres-
sion waves though the thickness when the global plate
motion has not been established [12].
265
Intermediate velocity is considered to fall between the
low and high velocity regimes. The main dierence being
that, depending on the projectile mass, large deforma-
tion may occur in the intermediate velocity range; par-
ticularly in the case of massive projectiles but may
dier from low velocity impacts with regard to loading
rate and momentum eects.
1.4. Impactor mass and geometry
The impactor size, shape, mass, material and angle of
incidence all have a strong inuence on the response of
the specimen [12]. A blunt object is dened as a large
diameter, high contact area projectile that emulates the
eects of debris to characterize energy absorption upon
impact. Jenq et al. [18] found that the momentum trans-
fer to graphite/epoxy targets by at impactors is about
four times greater than that of sharp or conically tipped
impactors when the penetrator was red at high veloc-
ity. Cantwell and Morton [19] studied the eect of pro-
jectile mass on energy absorption in composites while
maintaining the impactor size and shape. It was found
that varying the projectile mass had a signicant eect
on the resulting damage. Cantwell and Morton [19] sug-
gest that lighter projectiles are more damaging to the
overall load-bearing capacity of the composite because
the incident energy is dissipated over a very small area
immediately adjacent to the point of impact. This may
or may not be the case with intermediate velocity impact
depending on the target material, boundary conditions,
projectile shape and projectile mass.
1.5. Impact energy
The energy absorbed in the system, Eabsorbed, can be
described as having two components: the energy ab-
sorbed in creating damage in the specimen, Edamage,
and the energy absorbed by the system through vibra-
tion, heat, elastic response of the specimen, elastic
behavior of the projectile/supports, ESL, Eq. (2):
Eabsorbed Edamage ESL 2
where the Edamage term includes the energies associated
with the specimen indentation, matrix damage, ber
breakage, ber debonding, and ber pullout, and fric-
tion between the projectile and specimen during penetra-
tion/perforation. The energy absorbed in the system can
be equated to the energy put into the system, e.g., the ki-
netic energy, KE, of the impactor shown in Eq. (3):
Eabsorbed KE 1=2mV 20
1=2mV 2f ESL 3
where m is the projectile mass, and V0 and Vf are the ini-
tial and residual projectile velocities. The energy spent in
the elastic response of the projectile and supports has
been shown to be small and will not be considered, sim-
plifying Eq. (3) to yield Eq. (4) [13].
266 S.D. Bartus, U.K. Vaidya / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 263277

Eabsorbed KE 1=2mV 20
1=2mV 2f
The highest impact energy is absorbed at the ballistic
limit of the material in which the projectile imbeds itself
in the specimen. However, embedding a projectile in
thin specimens is dicult due to an inadequate contact
area between the target and projectile for ctional forces
to act upon. Since the residual velocity of a non-pene-
trating projectile is small, it is not included in the energy
balance. Therefore, the Vf term is not part of the energy
balance unless the projectile perforates the specimen and
has a detectible exit velocity. Otherwise, the initial veloc-
ity is assumed equal to the critical velocity, V0 = Vc. This
is similar to the V50 ballistic limit, which is dened as the
projectile having a 50% probability of completely pene-
trating the specimen at the critical velocity with a devi-
ation in velocity less than 40 m s
1 [12]. Given the low
critical velocity of blunt object impact, a more conserv-
ative denition is appropriate. Since a standard test
method does not exist for blunt object impact, the criti-
cal velocity is considered on the basis of a standard devi-
ation in velocity no greater than 10 m s
1 in which 50%
of the projectiles do not perforate the specimen.
2. Experimental
2.1. Celstran PP-GF40-03 processing and material
properties
Test plaques, with the geometry shown in Fig. 1 were
fabricated at Southern Research Institute, Birmingham,
Alabama, using Celstran PP-GF40-03, 40 wt.% long
glass ber reinforced, chemically coupled, heat stabilized
polypropylene manufactured by Ticona. The color num-
ber is AF 3001 (natural), stock number GL0175, and lot
4 number W7650. The starting ber length was 25.4 mm.
The plasticator and 3.56 MN (400(US)-ton) compres-
sion molder used were manufactured by C.A. Lawton
Co. The idle time was 5 s with a 30 s cooling time. This
gave a cycle time of approximately 60 s. The system pres-
sure in the plasticator was 1.25 MPa, the backpressure
2.07 MPa, the screw speed 910 rpm, and the melt tem-
perature at the knife was 232 C.
The mold temperatures, checked every 40 cycles, re-
mained constant at 54 C and 76 C for the top and bot-
tom mold halves, respectively. The plaque temperature
at the time of ejection varied from 87.5 C to 90.0 C
and from 45 C to 51 C 5 min after ejection for an ambi-
ent temperature of 3132 C. Twenty-four trial plaques
formed before making a 160 plaque run to ensure the
system was at steady state. The plaque ID is as follows:
(year, month, date, lot number, plaque number) e.g.,
(020919-1-#). The rst lot of plaques was manufactured
on September 19, 2002. The mechanical properties are
given in Table 1 [20].
2.2. Sample preparation
Three equal size samples (470.4 0.7 cm2) were cut
from each of the LFT plaques produced for blunt object
impact testing and the tabs were removed. The samples
are shown schematically (with the tabs still in place) in
Fig. 1. The average weight and Standard Deviation
(SD) for the three samples was 206.32 g (SD = 1.358 g),
219.80 g (SD = 1.822 g), and 225.27 g (SD = 1.056 g) for
the bottom, center and top samples, respectively. This
yielded an average areal density of 4.39 g cm
2,
4.67 g cm
2, and 4.79 g cm
2 for the bottom, center,
and top samples. The areal density is of interest because
impact energy absorption is often described in terms of
it. The variations in areal density are due to a thickness

Fig. 1. Schematic of the top and side views of the tab plaque (not shown to scale) and the representative sections that were cut from it and (b) Pro/E
isoperimetric drawing of the tab plaque.
 S.D. Bartus, U.K. Vaidya / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 263277 267

Table 1 Table 2. In total, 147 specimens where tested. The goal

Material properties of Celstran PP-GF40-03 adopted [19] in the impact-testing phase was to establish whether a
Property Method Value Units relationship existed between the critical energy dissipa-
Density ISO 1183 1210 kg m
3 tion and impact mass (e.g., strain-rate eects), the pro-
Tensile modulus (1 mm/min) ISO 527-2/1A 7900 MPa jectile geometry, ber orientation, and areal density.
Tensile stress at break ISO 527-2/1A 100 MPa The residual velocity due to rebound was measured
Tensile strain at break ISO 527-2/1A 2.0 %
Flexural modulus ISO 178 8000 MPa
using a Vision Research, Inc. digital high-speed camera
Flexural strength ISO 178 175 MPa (Model: Phantom V5.0), at 14,000 frames s
1 with 40 ls
Charpy notched impact ISO 179/1eA 20 kJ m
2 exposures, triggered manually. The maximum rebound
strength at 23 C velocity of a 100 g non-perforating sabot was calculated
to be approximately 4.4 m s
1. Since the residual velocity
from a rebounding projectile was small, it was not in-
Table 2 cluded in the energy balance.
Blunt object impact test matrix
Projectile mass (g) Projectile geometry Areal density 2.3. Impact test apparatus
of specimen (g cm
2)
25 Flat 4.39a A gas gun was used to propel a variety of projectiles,
25 Flat 4.67b Table 3, in a velocity range of approximately 42.8 m s
1
25 Flat 4.79c to 140.4 m s
1 with projectile masses varying between
50 Flat 4.39a
50 Flat 4.67b
23.7160.7 g with both conical and at congurations
50 Flat 4.79c to simulate the eects of blunt object impacts. The wide
100 Flat 4.39a range of projectile mass helped in determining velocity
100 Flat 4.67b eects, while the blunt projectile shape aided in charac-
100 Flat 4.79c terization of perforation mechanisms. The gas gun, Fig.
160 Flat 4.39a
160 Flat 4.67b
2, consists of a regulated high-pressure compressed uid
160 Flat 4.79c source (N or He), pressure transducer, pressure vessel,
25 Conical 4.39a ring valve, barrel, velocity sensors (Model: CED Mil-
25 Conical 4.67b lennium), capture chamber, specimen xture and projec-
25 Conical 4.79c tile arrest.
50 Conical 4.39a
50 Conical 4.67b
This range in projectile velocity and geometry will
50 Conical 4.79c simulate the eect of blunt objects such as rocks and
Average thicknesses:
debris traveling at highway speeds and greater. This
a
3.5 mm. work also provides insight into high strain-rate energy
b
3.8 mm. dissipation and failure mechanisms, such as a structural
c
4 mm. composite may undergo in the event on an automobile
accident.
A minimum of ve samples were tested for each
disparity caused by the lack of automatic leveling on the eighteen congurations, in an attempt to determine the
compression molder. The average thickness variation in critical impact velocity (or ballistic limit). Three test
the width and length directions was 20.3 0.8% and specimens of LFT PP/40 wt.% E-glass, shown in Fig.
5.5 0.9%, respectively, for the illustration shown in 1, were considered, representing ber orientation eects
Fig. 1. As determined later, the fracture path was found in addition to unintentional variations in areal density.
to be independent of the thickness. The results are discussed in terms of projectile mass,
A minimum of ve samples were examined for each projectile geometry, areal density, and ber orientation,
of the 18 congurations in the test matrix outlined in respectively.

Table 3
Blunt object projectile details
Projectile Weight (g) Shape Material Dimensions (mm)
Sabot 160 Flat Aluminum 37.71(/) 50
Sabot 100 Flat Aluminum 37.71(/) 50a
Sabot 50 Flat UHMWPE 37.71(/) 48
Sabot 50 Conical UHMWPE 37.71(/) 55, 60 shoulder
Sabot 25 Flat UHMWPE 37.71(/) 37a
Sabot 25 Conical UHMWPE 37.71(/) 41, 60 shouldera
a
Denotes sabots in which material was removed from the center to reduce mass.
268 S.D. Bartus, U.K. Vaidya / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 263277

Table 4
Statistical signicance of the critical velocity data for the top specimen
(4.79 g cm
2)
Projectile Mean Standard 95% condence
velocity (m s
1) deviation (m s
1) interval (m s
1)
25 g Flat 124.4 2.5 2.4
25 g Conical 103.5 2.4 2.1
50 g Flat 84.2 4.5 4.0
50 g Conical 76.4 3.9 3.4
100 g Flat 56.0 2.3 2.0
160 g Flat 46.9 2.1 1.6

Table 5
Statistical signicance of the critical velocity data for the center
specimen (4.67 g cm
2)
Projectile Mean Standard 95% Condence
velocity (m s
1) deviation (m s
1) interval (m s
1)
25 g Flat 127.2 9.8 8.6
25 g Conical 97.8 6.6 7.5
50 g Flat 83.3 6.3 4.7
50 g Conical 72.9 4.9 4.3
100 g Flat 53.8 1.1 0.9
160 g Flat 47.3 0.6 0.5

Table 6
Statistical signicance of the critical velocity data for the bottom
specimen (4.39 g cm
2)
Projectile Mean Standard 95% Condence
velocity (m s
1) deviation (m s
1) interval (m s
1)
25 g Flat 111.1 6.2 5.4
25 g Conical 97.9 4.9 4.8
50 g Flat 76.8 5.3 3.6
50 g Conical 68.2 4.1 3.6
100 g Flat 54.0 1.5 1.3
160 g Flat 44.7 1.1 1.0

the standard deviation increased with increasing velocity

Fig. 2. Gas gun test apparatus, (b) capture chamber, (c) entire
assembly.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Statistical analysis of the impact data
Statistical analysis was conducted on the velocity
data shown in Tables 46. The largest standard devia-
tion in the velocity data at the critical velocity (ballistic
limit) was 9.8 m s
1, which corresponds to a standard
deviation in the energy data of 30.5 J for the center spec-
imen impacted with the 25 g at projectile. In general,
however, the ratio between the standard deviation and
mean critical velocity did not exceed 5.3%, 7.7%, and
6.9% for the top, center, and bottom specimens,
respectively.
Factors that may have contributed to data deviation
are impactor material properties and inconsistencies in
the impact response of test specimen. Abrate noted that
the elastic material properties of the impactor could af-
fect the perforation energy; e.g., assuming no plastic
deformation of the impactor, higher modulus materials
result in higher contact stresses due to a decrease in elas-
tic deformation during the onset of damage [12]. Since
two dierent impactor materials were used in the mass
aect study, ultra high molecular weight polyethylene
(UHMWPE) and aluminum, a decrease in energy dissi-
pation could be expected in the case of the higher mod-
ulus aluminum projectile. However, the standard
deviation was large to make any conclusions as to
 S.D. Bartus, U.K. Vaidya / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 263277
whether the impactor material type played a signicant
role in energy dissipation.
Variations in data were most likely caused by irregu-
larities in the impact response of test specimens.
Although great care was taken in consistently impacting
the same area of all the specimens, sample shifting is
impossible to control in the case of a simply supported
sample. In addition, with the current sample holder,
there was no simple way to insure even clamping pres-
sure repeatedly, especially with variations in sample
thickness and process induced warping. Both factors
may have led to variations in the impact response of
the target. After impacting a specimen, the line of sup-
port at the four support areas leaves an imprint. Varia-
tions in the imprint were noted, and care was taken to
avoid this however this may have inuenced energy
dissipation.
3.2. Observations from high-speed photography
The primary explanation behind the deviation stems
from observations of three series of high-speed images
capturing the impact event of a 100 g, at tipped projec-
tile. Upon closer examination of the impact event, a
slight tilting of the projectile was noticed. This is illus-
trated in Figs. 3 and 4, which capture the projectile tilt-
ing just prior to impact. Damage initiated at the rst
Fig. 3. High-speed digital images taken at 14,000 frames s
1 of sample 020919-32C, illustrating the onset of damage, KE 150.2 J. The 100 g at tipped
projectile exemplied tilting.
Fig. 4. High-speed digital images taken at 14,000 frames s
1 of sample 020919-15C, showing a 100 g at projectile after the initial impact and while
rebounding, KE 142.3 J.
269
point of contact on the target, Fig. 3, which resulted
in a shear plug or punch-through failure. This is thought
to be a result of an increase in contact stresses at the
point of impact from a decrease in contact area between
the projectile and target. All samples impacted with the
100 g projectile were impacted under the exact test con-
guration and all data show a marked decrease in en-
ergy dissipation. The gas gun was realigned before
further testing was carried out and the impression left
by subsequent impactors did not indicate projectile
tilting.
From the high-speed images, Figs. 3 and 4, the im-
pact phenomenon is noted to exhibit both low and high
velocity characteristics. The rst impact event captured
was below the critical velocity, resulting in no visible
damage. In the other two image series, where the impact
occurred at close to the critical velocity for the 100 g at
projectile, incipient damage was observed before global
plate motion was established. This is a characteristic of
high velocity impact. Then, as momentum eects took
over, a large global displacement was observed (approx-
imately 25 mm), an attribute of low velocity impact, in
which the specimen deected up to the back of the sam-
ple support, because it was only simply supported on
two sides in order to observe the event.
A marked increase in contact stresses is also thought
to be responsible for a decrease in energy dissipation for
270 S.D. Bartus, U.K. Vaidya / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 263277
the conical projectiles, discussed in Section 3.4. In cases
where the projectile impacted normal to the specimen,
damage is thought to initiate at weak planes parallel
to areas of high ber orientation or in areas where ber
clumping occurs, determined from previous work
involving qualitative assessment of ber orientation via
matrix burn-o and process modeling [4].
3.3. Eect of projectile mass
In the rst phase of testing, the eect of projectile
mass was examined by determining the critical impact
velocity for three test specimens, top (areal den-
sity = 4.789 g cm
2), center (areal density = 4.674 g cm
2)
and bottom (areal density = 4.386 g cm
2). The goal in
this phase of testing was to establish if impact velocity
had an eect on energy dissipation and failure modes.
Impact mass variation is an established technique in var-
ying strain rate and often used in instrumented low
velocity drop weight testing [21]. Impact velocity alone
does not describe the impact properties of a material
but it can aect the energy dissipated in an impact.
Tables 46 illustrate the variations in impact velocity
with projectile mass as a function of the areal density
of each specimen. In all cases examined, the critical
velocity decreased exponentially as a function of projec-
tile mass.
The impact energy vs. projectile mass is shown in Fig.
5, where a linear regression was t to the mean of all the
impact energy vs. projectile mass data. For the range
investigated, the impact energy and projectile mass did
not inuence the specimen response to any notable de-
250
225
200
175
150
Energy (J)
125
100
75
50
25
0 20
Fig. 5. Energy (J) vs. projectile mass (g) for the bottom, center and top specimens with a linear regression analysis, tted thought the mean of each
data set, indicative of the independent relationship between projectile mass (impact velocity) and the energy dissipation upon impact. The trend in
decreasing energy dissipation in the at and conical data sets is most likely due to a decrease in areal density and ber orientation eects.
gree, indicating that the specimens were not sensitive
to strain rate in the range investigated. Variation in en-
ergy dissipation for the three dierent specimens tested
are attributed to dierences in areal density and ber
orientation. The eect of ber orientation is discussed
in greater detail in Section 3.7.
3.4. Eect of projectile geometry
In the preliminary testing using the at impactors, it
was surmised that inadvertent projectile tilting aected
the energy dissipation of the sample. It is thought that
this marked decrease in energy stems from an increase
in contact stresses at the point of impact. As one would
expect, a sharp or conically tipped projectile would also
result in a substantial decrease in perforation energy in
contrast to a normally impacting at projectile. Projec-
tile mass seemed to play even less of a role in the study
of conically shaped projectiles, whose results exhibited a
greater statistical signicance than the at shaped pro-
jectile study. If contact stress plays a dominant role in
sample perforation, it would follow that less deviation
would occur in conically shaped projectiles in which
projectile tilting would not adversely aect the contact
area.
Both projectile geometries inicted planar cracking of
the specimens upon impact. Typical damage modes for
samples impacted with both geometries are shown in
Fig. 6. Damage from at projectiles initiated along the
periphery of the impact area and propagated radially
along two or three planes, away from incipient damage.
Specimens impacted with conical projectiles however,
areal
density
areal
density
bottom, flat impactor (average)
bottom, conical impactor (average)
center, flat impactor (average)
center, conical impactor (average)
top, flat impactor (average)
top, conical impactor (average)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Projectile Mass (g)
 S.D. Bartus, U.K. Vaidya / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 263277 271

Fig. 6. Typical fracture patterns for test plaques impacted with (a) at and (b) conical impactors. The dashed circles indicate the impactor location.
The large circles visible in all images are from the support used during image acquisition.

250
Energy (Flat) = 63.2*(Areal Density) - 124.6
2
225 R = 0.93
Energy (Conical) = 45.2*(Areal Density) - 86.5
2
200 R = 0.97

175 174.9 J 175.0 J

Flat impactors
Energy (J)

150 151.3 J

131.0 J
125 Conical impactors
112.0 J 122.8 J
100

75 bottom, flat impactor center, flat impactor

top, flat impactor bottom, conical impactor
50
center, concial impactor top, conical impactor
25
4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9
-2
Areal Density (g cm )

Fig. 7. Energy vs. areal density for at and conically tipped impactors showing a linearly increasing trend via linear regression t through the mean
of all the impact data. The results of 106 impacted samples are shown, which represent increasing areal density for the bottom, center and top
specimens, respectively, which illustrate the inuence of impactor geometry. The linear regression for the at and conically tipped projectiles is given
in the top right of the graph with the respective R2 values.
272 S.D. Bartus, U.K. Vaidya / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 263277

exhibited a higher degree of crack branching. Damage
from conical projectiles initiated at the point of initial
contact, subjecting the specimen to high local contact
stresses. It is possible that crack branching results from
the increased ber strain energy at the point of contact
for samples subjected to impact with conical projectiles.
When bers fracture, the release of strain energy is
greater than the energy required to create a single crack
plane. The crack must then bifurcate in order to dissi-
pate excess energy.
Neglecting projectile mass eects and plotting projec-
tile geometry as a function of energy dissipation and
areal density, an increasingly linear trend develops.
Fig. 7 illustrates this proclivity in which a linear regres-
sion was t through the mean of the data for the at and
conical projectile geometries resulting in R-squared val-

Fig. 8. SEM image approximately 650 to the fracture plane of sample 34B showing ber pullout and ber breakage. The rough ber surface indicates
strong interfacial bermatrix bonding. A mixture of crazing-tearing and brittle fracture is evident in the matrix.

Fig. 9. SEM image normal to the fracture plane of sample 39B showing variations in ber orientation through the thickness of the section, taken
normal to the fracture plane.
 S.D. Bartus, U.K. Vaidya / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 263277 273

ues of 0.93 and 0.97, respectively. The mean numeric
data is reported next to the respective data set, Fig. 7.
On average, a decrease in critical energy dissipation
for the bottom, center and top specimens was approxi-
mately 26% (areal density = 4.39 g cm
2), 30% (areal
density = 4.67 g cm
2) and 25% (areal density =
4.79 g cm
2), respectively, when subjected to impact by
conically tipped projectiles.
3.5. Areal density eects
Fig. 7 summarizes the impact energy as a function of
areal density, or weight area
1 for the LFT specimens.
Variations in the energy dissipation of each of the sam-
ples were rst attributed to the variations in areal den-
sity, especially considering the expected linear increase
in energy dissipation. However, in the post mortem

Fig. 10. SEM image normal to the fracture plane of sample 34B showing ber pullout. Matrix failure appears to have a combination of crazing-
tearing (stress whitening) and brittle fracture (smooth appearance).

Fig. 11. SEM image normal to the fracture plane of sample 34B, taken normal to the fracture surface, showing the path of fracture following the
main ber orientation angle. The dominant failure modes are ber pull out (and shear out), ber breakage and matrix fracture.
274 S.D. Bartus, U.K. Vaidya / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 263277

examination of the impacted specimens, similarities be-
tween the fracture patterns of the three dierent samples
were qualitatively established, suggesting that a com-
mon failure mechanism might be at play.
3.6. Micrograph analysis
SEM analysis of the impacted LFT sample fracture
surface revealed that the predominant modes of failure
were ber debonding/pullout, ber fracture, ber
matrix pull away and matrix fracture, Figs. 813. It is
dicult to discern the dierence between ber fracture
and ber pullout in discontinuous ber composites.
Upon close examination, part of the ber/matrix interfa-
cial surface can be seen where the ber fractured and
pulled out, Fig. 8. This type of failure also appears in
Figs. 9, 11 and 13. Fiber pullout is evident in every
micrograph.

Fig. 12. SEM image normal to the fracture plane of sample 34T showing a high degree of orientation and ductile pulling of brils. Fiber clumping
also appears to be present.

Fig. 13. SEM of sample 1C showing ber pullout (ber sliding) and ber matrix pull away.
 S.D. Bartus, U.K. Vaidya / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 263277 275

3.6.1. Discussion This type of failure was seen in sections taken from
Fiber pullout occurs when the interfacial stresses at the specimens representing typical failure modes, shown
the ber matrix interface exceeds the interfacial strength, in Figs. 813 using SEM. The SEM images were taken
causing the ber to debond from the matrix. The impact normal to the fracture surface, Figs. 813. The ber ori-
load is then carried by the interfacial friction force im- entation was modeled in previous work [4] using CAD-
posed on the ber from the matrix and through matrix press-TP, a process modeling software that simulates
cracking. The magnitude of the interfacial friction is a mold lling and predicts ber orientation. A good corre-
function of the debonded ber surface roughness, the - lation was found between the fracture paths, which were
ber length, and the radial stresses on the ber imposed shown to follow planes parallel to areas with high ber
by thermal contraction. orientation predicted in the model. Matrix burn-os
The surface roughness of the ber is another factor were conducted on impacted samples, and they corre-
that is thought to inuence the ber matrix interface, lated with the CADpress-TP simulation [4]. Representa-
and thereby the failure. The surface roughness is mainly tive burn-os are shown in Fig. 14. The burn-o samples
dependant on chemical coupling and ber wetting at the
bermatrix interface. Fibers sized for the matrix exhibit
increased chemical coupling though an increase in ber
wetability. The debonded surface of a properly sized
ber is shown in Fig. 8, typically indicated by a rough
appearance when viewed at sucient magnication.
If the ber is above critical length, ber breakage
must occur for the ber to pullout. This failure mode,
referred to as ber fragmentation, occurs when the inter-
facial stresses exceed the ber strength. This is likely to
have occurred in the impacted LFT samples. However,
it is not easy to characterize the phenomenon without
low ber loading in a transparent matrix, clearly not
the case with the samples examined.
Three possible modes of failure appear in the matrix;
brittle fracture, crazing-tearing (stress whitening) and
separation of brils, Figs. 8, and 1013. A smooth frac-
ture surface indicates brittle fracture, Figs. 8, 10, 11 and
13. This was the most common failure mode seen in the
SEM micrograph analysis. The matrix fails in a brittle
manner because the ber reinforcement inhibits large
matrix deformations. Crazing-tearing, indicated by the
white areas in the micrographs shown in Figs. 8, 10,
11 and 13 is also common in thermoplastic matrices sub-
jected to strain. The ductile pulling of brils, Figs. 9 and
12 also indicates a brittle failure. No attempt was made
to quantify the matrix failure modes. The contribution
of energy dissipation from matrix is typically small in
contrast to the reinforcement.

3.7. Fiber orientation eects

Thomason and Vlug [6] surmised that a linear rela-

tionship exists between tensile and impact strength. As
the ultimate tensile strength increases, the impact
strength increases. Since tensile strength is a strong func-
tion of ber orientation, impact strength would be ex-
pected to follow similar trends. No known models of
impact strength as a function of discontinuous ber ori-
entation exist, and current models for uniaxially aligned
Fig. 14. Post impact matrix burn-os for representative samples (top,
bers have not been well-documented [6]. Intuitively, center, bottom) showing a high degree of ber orientation along the
fracture seems most likely to follow the weakest plane, fracture plane. The arrows indicate the direction of propagation and
e.g., the plane parallel to the main ber orientation. the dashed circle shows where the projectile impacted.
276 S.D. Bartus, U.K. Vaidya / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 263277
Impact area
Fracture path
Fibers blunting
crack propagation
Fig. 15. Illustration of a possible failure mechanism of the samples tested showing a transverse view of a test plaque with the fracture path following
a preferential plane of ber orientation.
qualitatively indicate that the highest ber orientation
occurred in the bottom sample (farthest from the charge
placement), and the most random ber orientation was
in the top sample, where the charge was placed. Ran-
dom ber orientation appears to result in the highest im-
pact strength in the case of BOI testing by creating a
torturous crack path, while the Charpy and Izod impact
testing; strength is greatest perpendicular to areas of
high ber orientation.
The burn-os clearly show that failure occurred along
areas with a high degree of ber orientation, Fig. 14, and
the fracture path changed when the main ber orienta-
tion underwent a change, Fig. 14(b). This information
is of great interest since areas with a high degree of ber
orientation can be altered through choice of materials,
process parameters, and component geometry, in order
to improve impact resistance.
A simplied illustration of the failure progression is
shown in Fig. 15. The gure shows a schematic trans-
verse view of ber orientation and fracture path. The
impact occurs at the top of and the damage/crack fol-
lows the plane with a higher degree of ber orientation.
As the crack propagates, energy is dissipated though
ber debonding, ber pullout, ber breakage, and ma-
trix fracture. The crack continues to propagate until
the energy for fracture is spent or the crack is blunted
by bers oriented perpendicular to the fracture path.
4. Conclusions
The eects of LFTs subjected to BOI were investigated
as a function of projectile mass and geometry. The aver-
age critical energy dissipated for PP/40 wt.% E-glass
(average areal density = 4.61 g cm
2) was 167 J and 121 J
for the at and conical projectiles, respectively. The pre-
dominant energy dissipation mechanisms are ber frac-
ture, ber debonding, ber pullout, and matrix fracture.
For panels impacted by the at tipped projectile with
normal incidence (e.g., full contact of the projectile face
with the sample), the limiting damage occurred by
punch-through (shear plug). The damage initiated
around the periphery of the impactor as a result of high
transverse shear stresses. Assuming a uniform stress dis-
tribution around the periphery of the projectile, failure
occurred in areas with preferential ber orientation tan-
gent to the impact area. Away from the impactor, the
dominant failure mode occurred by simultaneous tear-
ing (planar cracking) across planes of preferential ber
orientation.
In the 100 g at impactor study, the edge of the pro-
jectile made the rst contact resulting from a slight tilt-
ing upon or prior to contact. This consequently resulted
in an initial notch arising from increased contact stres-
ses, followed by punch-through and subsequent tearing.
The increase in contact stresses decreased the critical en-
ergy required for perforation. This is also thought to be
the mechanism for a decrease in energy dissipation for
the conically tipped projectiles.
Energy dissipation (critical energy) for samples sub-
jected to conical projectile impact was approximately
27% less than samples impacted by at projectiles. How-
ever, samples impacted by conical projectiles exhibited a
higher degree of damage, e.g., more fracture surface as a
result of increased crack branching. This may be a result
of increased ber strain energy at the point of impact for
samples impacted with the conical projectiles. When the
bers fracture, the release of strain energy is greater than
 S.D. Bartus, U.K. Vaidya / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 263277
the energy required to create a single crack plane, result-
ing in crack bifurcation in order to dissipate the excess
energy.
Impactor velocity did not result in any appreciable ef-
fects on the critical energy dissipation in the specimens.
This indicates that the material was not sensitive to the
loading rate in the range investigated. Critical energy
dissipation is linear with respect to areal density for each
projectile geometry. In addition to areal density eects,
ber orientation may also play a critical role in energy
dissipation. The energy dissipation of impacted LFTs
appears to decrease as areal density decreases and as
ber orientation increases.
The cracks had a tendency to advance along areas
where an abrupt change in local ber orientation occurs.
Abrupt changes in local ber orientation may also be a
mechanism for crack blunting. This indicates that com-
ponents exhibiting a high degree of anisotropy, or
abrupt changes in ber orientation, will be susceptible
to impact damage. A random orientation would likely
provide the maximum impact strength by creating a tor-
turous path for crack propagation. More over, LFTs
with a random ber orientation would also exhibit
greater damage tolerance due to crack blunting.
References
[1] Hartness T, Husman G, Koenig J, Dyksterhouse J. The charac-
terization of low cost ber-reinforced thermoplastic composites
produced by the drift process. Composites 2001;32:115560.
[2] Marsh G. Composites on the road to big time. Reinf Plast
2003;47:336. 3847.
[3] Saito M, Kukula S, Kataoka Y. Practical use of the statistically
modied laminate model for injection moldings. Part 1: method
and verication. Polym Compos 1998;19:497505.
[4] Bartus SD. Long-ber-reinforced thermoplastic: process modeling
and resistance to blunt object impact. A thesis, The University of
Alabama at Birmingham, Materials Science and Engineering
Department, 2003.
277
[5] Lee SM, Cheon JS, Im YT. Experimental and numerical study of
the impact behavior of SMC plates. Compos Struct 1999;47:
55161.
[6] Thomason JL, Vlug MA. Inuence of bre length and concen-
tration on the properties of glass bre-reinforced polypropylene.
4. Impact properties. Composites 1997;28A:27788.
[7] Thomason JL, Vlug MA. Inuence of bre length and concen-
tration on the properties of glass bre-reinforced polypropylene.
1. Tensile and exural modulus. Composites 1996;27A:47784.
[8] Miller K, Ramani K. Process-induced residual stresses in
compression molded UHMWPE. Polym Eng Sci 1999;39:1108.
[9] Bush SF, Torres FG, Methven JM. Rheological characterization
of discrete long glass bre (LGF) reinforced thermoplastics.
Composites 2000;31:142131.
[10] Chawla KK. Composite materials science and engineering. 2nd
ed., New York: Springer-Verlag; 1998.
[11] Curtis PT, Bader MG, Bailey JE. The stiness and strength of
a polyamide thermoplastic reinforced with glass and carbon bers.
J Mater Sci 1978;13:37790.
[12] Abrate S. Impact on composite structures. Cambridge University
Press; 1998.
[13] Delfrosse D, Poursartip A. Energy-based approach to impact
damage in CRFP laminates. Composites 1997;28A:64755.
[14] Dutta PK, Farrell D, Taylor S, Tadayon A, Hui D. CRREL
Special Report 96-29, 1996.
[15] Okafor AC, Otieno AW, Dutta A, Rao VS. Detection and
characterization of high-velocity impact damage in advanced
composite plates using multi-sensing techniques. Compos Struct
2001;54:28997.
[16] Iremonger MJ, Went AC. Ballistic impact of bre composite
armours by fragment-simulating projectiles. Composites
1996;27A:57581;
Tarim N, Findik F, Uzun H. Ballistic impact performance of
composite structures. Compos Struct 2001.
[17] Tarim N, Findik F, Uzun H. Ballistic impact performance of
composite structures. Compos Struct 2002;56:1320.
[18] Jenq ST, Wang SB, Sheu LT. A model for predicting the residual
strength of GFRP laminates subject to ballistic impact. J Reinf
Plast Compos 1992;11:112741.
[19] Cantwell WJ, Morton J. The inuence of varying projectile mass
on the impact response of CFRP. Compos Struct 1989;11:10114.
[20] Available from: http://www.ticona-us.com/datasheet/DataSheet.
cfm?ID=827&STANDARD=ISO, August 9, 2002.
[21] Hsiao HM, Daniel IM. Stain rate behavior of composite
materials. Composites 1998;29B:52131.