Int. Impact Engng Vol. 19, No. J.

Pergamon
PII:SO734-743X(96)OOBl7-6

2, pp. 135-146, 1997 Copyright 0 1996 ElsevierScienceLtd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved

0734-743x/97$17.00 0.00 +

DYNAMIC TENSILE TESTING OF ARAMID AND POLYETHYLENE FIBER COMPOSITES

IS. CHOCRON BENLOULO, J. RODRIGUEZ, M.A. MARTINEZ and V. SANCHEZ GALVEZ
Departamento de Ciencia de Materiales, E.T.S.1 Caminos Canales y Puertos, Universidad Polittcnica de Madrid, Madrid 28040, Spain
(Received 11 May 1995; in revised form 25 April 1996)

Summary-Dynamic properties of materials such as aramid and polyethylene fiber reinforced composites are rarely found in the literature, in spite of their significance in ballistic design. It is also difficult to find detailed descriptions of the testing techniques and procedures to characterize these materials. This paper describes a dynamic tensile testing technique for these composite materials, and discusses problems such as the specimen size and the clamping system. A full numerical simulation is performed in Autodyn-2D to elucidate what is happening during the experiment. Finally this testing technique is applied to show that reliable data can be obtained from the Hopkinson bar for aramid and polyethylene fiber reinforced composites. Stress-strain, stress versus rate of strain and strain versus rate of strain curves are included. The results indicate that for these materials the tensile strength rises with the strain rate while the maximum strain diminishes in the range studied. Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: aramid, polyethylene, dynamic, Hopkinson bar, characterisation.

NOTATION CFRP GFRP PET PP E : S carbon fiber reinforced composites glass fiber reinforced composites polyethylenterefthalate polypropylene sound velocity Youngs modulus bulk modulus shear modulus standard deviation

INTRODUCTION The tensile dynamic characterization of composite materials is a difficult, but interesting work. It is difficult because the failure process (tension, shear failure or pull-out) is usually out of control and not repetitive, and because the specimen has to be small enough to ensure the equilibrium state before failure. Additionally, when high fiber content composites for ballistic applications are investigated, a large clamping or gluing surface is needed to avoid slip and stress concentrations. It is interesting because little work has been done in this field and the data may be essential for numerical or analytical modeling. Some results in CFRP and a description of the testing technique can be found in Harding [ 11.Additional high strain rate data of another composite material (GFRP) can be consulted, for instance, in Harding [2,3], Newill [4] or Staab [S]. In spite of these studies, the difficulty in finding high strain rate properties increases when aramid or polyethylene fiber reinforced plastics are the objective. The reader can compare aramid composite characterization in Morrison [6] or in the DuPont Company Guide [7] with the results of this paper. Extensive information on composite materials at high strain rate is available in Abrate [S] and Cantwell [9]. In this work, an experimental technique based on the Hopkinson bar for testing materials such as aramid and polyethylene composites is described. Static, intermediate and high strain rate tensile tests are performed. The study is completed with a full numerical simulation in order to show the reliability of the Hopkinson bar as a tool for the dynamic characterization
135

136

1. S. Chocron Benloulo et al.

of these materials. Critical points such as the specimen size and the clamping system are discussed and their influence in the tests is analysed. Finally, woven aramid fiber in PET and PP matrices and polyethylene fiber in polyethylene matrix were tested at strain rates of 10-j s- , 1 s- and approx. lo3 s- . The very high fiber contents of these composites (80% in mass, as is typical in ballistics applications) increases the experimental difficulties and complicates the interpretation of the results because, as will be shown, the stress-strain curves characteristic of the aramid composite fabric tested are nonlinear. The results (stress-strain curves) of the tensile tests are shown, and the discussion paragraph illustrates how the characteristics of these materials depend on the strain rate. TESTING TECHNIQUE
Experimental

Five different composites are tested in this work: three woven fabrics of aramid, one woven fabric of polyethylene and one unidirectional composite of polyethylene. For a complete description of the materials and the manufacturing procedures, see Tables 1 and 2. The experimental work can be divided into two groups: the first regarding the materials characterization itself and the second considering the influence of the system clamps in the experiments.
Materials characterization.

All the tests employed the same geometry of the specimen (Fig. l), and with the same clamping system, and the same direction of the fibers. There are important points that need clarifying. Firstly, as can be seen in Fig. 1, the specimen is very
Table 1. Materials description Material Matrix Fiber Weave Surface density (kg/m*) 2.31 (2 plies) 2.15 (2 plies) 2.53 (2 plies) 0.71 (4 plies) 0.61 (4 plies) Fiber content (% in weight) 76 81 67 Porosity (% in volume) 5.2 17 4.6

A/PP A/PET1 A/PET2 SK/66 UD/66

Polypropylene (PP) Polyethylenter fthalate (PET) Polyethylenter fthalate (PET) Polyethylene (PE) Polyethylene (PE)

Aramid 336 Woven tex 0#90 Aramid 336 Woven text 0#90 Aramid 336 Woven text 0#90 Polyethylene Woven 0.97g/cm3 0#90 Polyethylene Unidirectional 0.97g/cm3 01190

Weight in g of 1000 m of yarn. Table 2. Materials manufacturing process Material A/PP Manufacturing process (1) Vacuum bag at 300 Pa (2) Autoclave: 2h, 1loC, 5 bars (3) Autoclave: 5 min, 195C, 19 bar (1) Vacuum bag at 300 Pa (2) Autoclave: lh, 150C 5 bars (3) Autoclave: 5 min, 280C 10 bar (1) Vacuum bag at 300 Pa (2) Autoclave: 2h, 150C 5 bars (3) Autoclave: 5 min, 28OC, 19 bar Hot Pressed: 20 min, 12oC, 25 kg/cm* Hot Pressed: 20 min, 12oC, 25 kg/cm

A/PET 1

A/PET2

SK/66 UD/66

Dynamic tensile testing of aramid and polyethylene fiber composites

137

10.5 mm

30 mm
62 mm
Thickness: lmm Fig. 1. Specimen geometry.

small, to the point that it is questionable whether the behavior would be the same in real composites, so static tests were done with conventional clamps and with specimens four times larger and these showed that there is no significant difference between the strengths of the small and large specimens, apart from the intrinsic scattering in the composites. Quasi-static (10e3 s-r) and intermediate (1 s- ) strain rate tests were performed in a conventional (INSTRON 8501) testing machine. The load was measured as is usual by means of a load cell. The strain measurements are always problematic in composite characterization. In this case, it was solved by using an Instron resistive extensometer and strain gauges directly glued on the specimens. These two types of measurements were performed together with the strain calculation from the machine actuator displacement, in order to calibrate and compare the results. The comparisons are shown in Figs 2 and 3, and prove that for these materials and at these strain rates (lo- 3 s- and 1 s- ) the strain could be measured with either the resistive extensometer or with the strain gauge. It was also checked that the strain calculated with the testing machine actuator displacement is a good one, although it is a little overestimated. The resistive extensometer, as a reliable and cheap strain measurement, was selected for the remaining tests. The dynamic tests, as already mentioned, were developed in a tensile version of the Hopkinson bar. Raw data were provided by a Vishay 2210 amplifier with high frequency response (100 KHz, 3 f 0.2 dB at all gain settings). Initially, the dynamic tests were performed by gluing the specimen to the bars to avoid the use of clamps, but there was a systematic slip of the specimen, no matter what glue was used. A clamping system was then designed (Fig. 4) to try to alter the minimum possible wave propagation in the Hopkinson bar equipment.

6T -

: lnstron : -Crosshead

-Gauge Strain extensometer strain strain

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Time (s)
Fig. 2. Comparison of the strain measured by different means in a static test.

138

I. S. Chocron Benloulo et a/

-Crosshead

strain

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

Time (s)
Fig. 3. Comparison of the strain measured by different means in a test at Is-.

-_1 cEqg+Ym
I
30 mm
Fig. 4. Section of the clamps.

The traditional Hopkinson procedure was followed to determine the stress and strain in the specimen through the elastic strains measured in the bars (Kolsky theory, see Ref. [lo]). For this type of test the only possibility of verification of the strain calculated from the displacements of the bars is to compare it with the strain measured directly on the specimen by means of strain gauges (Micro Measurements EP-08-125AC-350, strain limit of 20%). The results of this comparison are shown in Fig. 5 where it is seen that the traditional procedure (the gauge length is now 30 mm and we integrate the velocity difference between the two edges of the bars) underestimates the strain of the specimen by 1%. An advance of the typical stress-strain curves obtained for A/PET1 are shown in Fig. 6. The first observation is that the strain rate does affect the Youngs modulus, failure strain and maximum strength, only at high strain rate. The behavior at 10m3 s-l and at 1 s-l is very similar although the tensile strength increases slightly, as we will see in Fig. 13. At high strain rate tensile strength can almost double the static value. ZnJuence of the clamps. To check the influence of the clamp system in the Hopkinson experiments, several empty tests were performed (tests in the input Hopkinson bar without specimen): three tests without clamp and three with clamp were analysed and the mean waves obtained can be seen in Fig. 7 where two channels are recorded, the first corresponding to the strain gauge 1 (see in Fig. 8 where the Hopkinson bar is used) and the second to the strain gauge 2. Unfortunately, it is seen that the clamp does affect the wave: the key result is that in fact, the waves with and without clamp are not so different because in both experiments the initial profile drops are coincident. This means that the reflection of the wave in the input bar still occurs at the interface bar-clamp and not at the interface clamp-specimen, where it is

Dynamic tensile testing of aramid and polyethylene fiber composites

139

Strain

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Strain (%)
Fig. 5. Comparison of the strain measured by different means in a test at lOOO-.

1 s-l.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Strain (%)
Fig. 6. Stress-strain curves for A/PET1 at different strain rates, all the strains measured with strain gauges.

supposed to occur. The conclusion is that the test is being performed on the clamp plus specimen and then the maximum strength and strain could be wrong. The strength can be calculated from the wave of the output bar to circumvent the problem. It is not possible to check experimentally the influence of the clamp in the output bar, so this is one of the objectives of the numerical simulation described in the following section. Comparison with the numerical simulation The general aim of the numerical simulation is to prove that the clamps do not falsify the results and that the equilibrium hypothesis during the tensile test with the Hopkinson bar is acceptable. The program used was Autodyn-2D, a well known finite difference code in dynamic applications [l 11.Three problems were modeled: empty tests in the input bar, as a method of program calibration; tensile wave in the output bar, to analyse the influence of the clamp on this second bar; and a whole test simulation, to check whether the method provides a reliable result of the specimen behavior.

140 loo -

I. S. Chocron Benloulo et al.

: ._ m ._ ._ ; at

50 -

3 0 = ._ ti
0

O-

-50 -

-Channel -Channel - - - -. Channel -----Channel

1 without Clamps 2 without Clamps 1 with Clamps 2 with Clamps

600

700

800

900

1000

Time (ps)
Fig. 7. Waves recorded in input bar in an empty test.

Strain gage 1 (Channel 1)

Projectile

Bolt

Fig. 8. Scheme of the Hopkinson bar used.

Firstly, in the modeling of an empty test a mesh with axial-symmetry was considered (Fig. 9), where each element is a 1.5 mm square. The bar and clamp properties introduced in the code are typical of steel: c = 52OOm/s, E = 210.7 GPa, K = 175.6 GPa, G = 81.04 GPa. The clamps are rigidly joined to the bar through the screw interface. The tensile wave applied to the input bar was taken from the experiments with a rising time of 80 ,US (maximum value of 400 MPa), an arrest in 60 ,US,and a descent in 80 ,US.The idea was to check whether Autodyn-2D can reproduce the waves of an empty test. Figure 10 shows that the agreement is pretty good. But if we take out the clamps in the numerical simulation, the agreement is much better. Again it is proved that the wave reflection is produced at the end of

Input Bar

Specimen

Output Bar

Fig. 9. Mesh of the Hopkinson bar for the numerical simulation.

Dynamic tensile testing of aramid and polyethylene fiber composites

141

-=---Channel

2, numeric
.

-5OO.~...
0
100

200

300

400

500

Time (ps)
Fig. 10. Comparison of the numerical and experimental waves in an empty test with Hopkinson bar.

the bar and before the clamp: consequently this bar cannot be used to calculate the force transmitted through the specimen. Secondly, the output bar, with the clamp simulated in it, is subjected to a triangular tensile wave similar to that which passes through the specimen in a real test. The question was whether the clamp could transmit, only with shear stresses (because the clamp is bolted to the bar), the tensile wave without modification. As is seen in Fig. 11, the tensile wave is reproduced further in the bar, showing little alteration. Thus, with this wave it is possible to calculate the strength of the specimen. Finally, a whole test simulation was performed. The objective of this modeling was to see whether the experimental technique provides reliable data of the specimen behavior. The wave recorded in the specimen and in the strain gauge located in the output bar should be similar to allow the deduction of the material strength. Due to the two-dimensional character of Autodyn-2D, the real composite test cannot be simulated. Instead of this, a cylindrical specimen of the same section was modeled. The material properties used in this simulation are in fact fictitious because the real composite specimen is not a cylinder and is an

250 k
200 150

100

50

0 40 60 60 100

Time (ps)
Fig. 11. Input signal and its evolution 15 cm after crossing the clamp (numerical simulation).

142

1. S. Chocron Benloulo et a/.

anisotropic material. In spite of this, and taking into account that the objective is to study the experimental technique, the specimen was treated as an isotropic material with K = 100 GPa and G = 100 GPa and was rigidly joined to the clamps. Two failures modes were checked: maximum strength and maximum strain, providing similar results. The evolution of the stress during the test simulation is recorded with targets located in the specimen (in the left and right ends and in the middle), the clamp and the output bar. The plots are shown in Fig. 12, omitting the clamp target because it does not provide additional interesting information. It is seen that the waves recorded everywhere in the specimen are almost identical implying that it is in an equilibrium and uniform state, along its length, during Hopkinson bar tests. The only difference between the left and right ends of the specimen signals is in the initial point, as expected. It is also shown that the wave in the specimen is basically in agreement with the wave recorded in the output bar. The small overestimation of the stress is possibly due to numerical phenomena. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Using the experimental technique described, at least five valid tests per material and per velocity were performed, with the results shown in Tables 3 and 4. The A/PET1 was the only material that has been instrumented with strain gauges.

600 r
500 -

-Signal in the bar (Channel 3) Stress Left End of the Specimen - -Stress Right End of the Specimen - Stress Middle of the Specimen

240

250

260

270

260

290

300

310

320

Time (ps)
Fig. 12. Wave recording at three points of the specimen and on the bar in the whole test simulation.

Table 3. Maximum stress of the different materials tested Strain rate (s-l) Material A/PP A/PET 1 A/PET2 SK/66 UD/66 10-V Stress (MPa) 503 S=3% 270 S=9% 359 s = 10% 405 S=6% Is_ Stress (MPa) 533 S = 16% 320 S=ll% 445 S=ll% 460 S=l% 372 S=9% lo?- Stress (MPa) 515 s= 12% 411 S=5% 510 s = 19% 631 s= 14% 654 S=7%

Dynamic tensile testing of aramid and polyethylene fiber composites Table 4. Maximum strain of the different materials tested Strain rate Material 10-V Strain (crosshead) 0,068 s= 14% 0,050 s = 10% 0,059 S=21% 0,102 S=8% Strain (instrum.) 0,033 0,037 0,042 Strain (crosshead) 0,069 S=9% 0,050 S=7% 0,060 S=5% 0,064 S=4% 0,053 s = 19% Is- Strain (instrum.) 0,041 0,06 1 0,056 Strain (crosshead) 0,039 S=21% 0,011 s = 49% 0,029 S=21% 0,025 s= 15% 0,016 S=21% loss-

143

Strain (instrum.)

AjPP A/PET1 A/PET2 SK/66 UDi66

0,033 -

Table 3 presents the mean strength values and its standard deviation (S), and Table 4 the mean strain values measured with the machine crosshead in the first column and with the extensometers in the second. The results are as important as the trend, so they are also shown in Figs 13 and 14 for direct comparison with previously published results [6,7,12]. Welsh and Harding [ 121 found that the strength of aramid/polyester composites, with 40% fiber content, rose 20% when tested at high strain rate, and the maximum strain decreased from 2.5 to 1.5%. The materials studied in this paper show a similar behavior, their strength rising 15% in A/PET1 and 50% in SK/66, while the strain falls from 6 to 3% A/PET2. The reader may also find similar results in the paper of Zhu [13], where Youngs moduli from 7 to 19 GPa are observed in Aramid/Polyester composites: this paper shows a Youngs modulus of 10 GPa for A/PETl. Many problems arise when analysing the results . The first is the high data dispersion obtained in normally identical tests due mainly to two effects: the intrinsic dispersion of the composites in themselves, and the test procedure. The highest dispersion is usually obtained in the Hopkinson bar, but it is very difficult to increase the control on the tests. Figures 15 and 16 show three examples, for each strain rate, of SK/66 and A/PET1 testing and confirm that much more research is needed to reduce the high non-repetitiveness. A significant number of tests present very nonlinear stress-strain curves with two phases clearly defined (see also Figs 15 and 16). This mostly occurs at static and low velocity, while

-A/PP
-

600 -

A/PET1 APET

500 -

400-

300 -

-IO4

10

1U2

lo-

loo

10

ld

Id

lo4

Strain Rate (s-l)

Fig. 13. Tensile strength as a function of strain rate for different materials.

144 12

I. S. Chocron Benloulo et al.

. .. .. .

..

7.

....

. .

.. ..

._._ . . _ ..

-VT -A/PET1 -+-A/PET2 )___SK66 . )__. IJj66

:Es!!
0

..-... -._ .. .._. ..-. -....

10 ld ld lo4

1U4

1V3

lo-*

10-l

loo

Strain Rate (s-l)

Fig. 14. Failure strain as a function of strain rate for different materials.

800 I

0.00

1.oo

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

8.00

7.00

Strain (%)
Fig. 15. Three tests at each strain rate for SK/66.

the effect disappears in the Hopkinson bar test. This effect is also described by Zhu [13]. A possible reason may be because the composites are woven, and have very high fiber content, the first phase of the curves reflects the alignment of the yarns (thus undulating the transversal ones) and the second phase the tension on the yarns as if the weave did not exist. In the high strain rate test this effect disappears because the yarns have no time to align themselves. Another possible reason to explain this nonlinearity could be the intrinsic viscosity of polymers and polymer-matrix composites [ 141. However, although there is no evidence to ensure that a viscoelastic effect does not exist, due to the slight difference between the curves obtained at 0.001 and 1 s-l, the authors are inclined to the first explanation. Microscopic observations may throw light on the deformation mechanisms and these should be the following step. Another point arises when analysing the real failure strain rate of the specimen tested in the Hopkinson bar. If the traditional procedure is used, the strain rate seems to change throughout the test up to failure. Moreover, when plotting in the same diagram (Fig. 17), stress and strain rate versus time, it is shown that failure occurs at 500 s- i and not at 1000 s-

Dynamic tensile testing of aramid and polyethylene fiber composites

145

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Strain (Oh)
Fig. 16. Three tests at each strain rate for A/PETl.

400

500

G
9 V 300

ua
400 s _. =I 3 P 200 G 100 San Strain rate : 100 V 1, 300

2 200 e
G
- - - - -Gauge Strain rate

20

40

60

60

100

Time (ps)
Fig. 17. Strain rate and stress versus time plot showing the failure strain rate.

as was supposed. The strain rate is half of the previously predicted value, although the order of magnitude is conserved. If the values directly measured on the specimen by means of strain gauges are used, the same maximum strain rate is derived, but it is reached much earlier in the test, maintaining this constant value up to rupture. To increase the strain rate, the design of the experimental device should be modified to provide a shorter rise of the initial tensile wave, the only limit being the equilibrium requirements [ 151. When simulating the test numerically, and using Autodyn-2D in an intrinsically 3D problem (because of the composite), a cylindrical symmetry is selected leading to a cylindrical specimen while its real shape is planar and looks like a dog bone. This is a clear drawback to the modeling presented. However the objective of the simulation process was more to assess the use of clamps than to simulate the material behavior. The results seem to confirm that a representative behavior of the specimen can be derived from the bars-clamps experiments, in spite of the irregularities in the wave propagation. All these problems show that further investigation is needed to diminish the dispersion of the data, if some kind of constitutive equation is sought. This should be the final objective, and its attainment would be very helpful for practical design using woven composites.

146

I. S. Chocron Benloulo et al

CONCLUSIONS From the experimental and numerical results presented in this paper the following main conclusions can be established:
l

It is shown, first experimentally and then numerically, that the Hopkinson bar is a useful method to estimate the strain rate dependence of composite materials. Stress and strain can be calculated with the classical method, leading to results that underestimate the strain but with an acceptable level of discrepancy.

The stress-strain curves clearly depends on the strain rate. The increase of the tensile strength and the decrease in the failure strain do occur in the woven composites tested in this study. Polyethylene composites show a greater variation of their properties with the strain rate than the aramid based ones.

Acknowledgements- The authors are indebted to Empresa National Santa Barbara and to Comisibn Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnologia for their economical support through the project MAT 9295-0050.

REFERENCES
1. Harding, J., Lecture Notesfor the Short Course on Structural Impact. University of Oxford, 21-29 January 1992. 2. Harding, J. and Welsh, L. M., A tensile testing technique for fiber-reinforced composities at impact rates of strain. J. Mater. Sci., 1983, 18, 1810-1826. 3. Harding, J., Li, Y.L., Saka, K. and Taylor, M.E.C., Characterization of the impact strength of woven carbon fiber/epoxy laminate. Proc. Int. Co@ Mech. Properties Mat. High Rate of Strain, Oxford, 1989, pp. 403-410. 4. Newill, J. F. and Vinson, R., Some high strain rate effects on composite materials. Proc. oflCCM9, Vol. 5,1993, pp. 269. 5. Staab, G. H. and Gilat, A., High strain rate characterization ofangle-ply glass/epoxy laminate. Proc. of ICCM9, Vol. 5, 1993, pp. 279. 6. Morrison, C and Bader, M. G., Behavior of aramid fiber yarns and composites under transverse impact. Proc. of the First ECCM, Bordeaux, 1985, pp. 706-712. 7. DuPont Company, A Guide to Designing and Preparing Ballistic Protection of Kevlar Aramid. Memo 440 (1983) 8. Abrate, S., Impact on laminated composite materials. Appt. Mech. Rev., 1991,44, April. 9. Cantwell, W. J. and Morton, J., The impact resistance of composite materials-a review, Composites, 1991,22,
(5) 347-362.

10. Kolsky, H., An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials at very high strain rates of loading, Proc. R. Sot. E, 1949,62,676-701. 11. Autodyn Users Manual. Century Dynamics Incorporated, 1989. 12. Welsh, L. M. and Harding, J., Effect of strain rate on the tensile failure of woven reinforced polyester resin composites. Journal de Physique, Collogue CS, 1986,46 (SuppI.). 13. Zhu, Guoqi, Goldsmith, W. and Dharan, C. K. H., Penetration of laminated kevlar by projectiles -1. Experimental investigation. Int. J. Solids Structures, 1992,29,399-420. 14. Wang, Lili, Labibes, K., Azari, Z. and Pluvinage, G., Generalization of split Hopkinson bar technique to use viscoelastic bars. Int. J. Impact Engng, 1994, 15, 669-689. 15. Rodriguez, J., Navarro, C. and Sanchez Galvez, V., Numerical assessment of the dynamic tension test using the split Hopkinson bar. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 1994,22, 335-342.