The goal of the study was to develop protocols to prepare consistent specimens for accurate mechanical testing of high-strength aramid or ultra-high-molar-mass polyethylene-based flexible unidirectional composite laminate materials and to describe protocols for performing artificial ageing on these materials.
Many body armor designs incorporate unidirectional (UD) laminates. UD laminates are constructed of thin (<0.05 mm) layers of high-performance yarns, where the yarns in each layer are oriented parallel to each other and held in place using binder resins and thin polymer films. The armor is constructed by stacking the unidirectional layers in different orientations. To date, only very preliminary work has been performed to characterize the ageing of the binder resins used in unidirectional laminates and the effects on their performance. For example, during the development of the conditioning protocol used in the National Institute of Justice Standard-0101.06, UD laminates showed visual signs of delamination and reductions in V50, which is the velocity at which half of the projectiles are expected to perforate the armor, after ageing. A better understanding of the material property changes in UD laminates is necessary to comprehend the long-term performance of armors constructed from these materials. There are no current standards recommended for mechanically interrogating unidirectional (UD) laminate materials. This study explores methods and best practices for accurately testing the mechanical properties of these materials and proposes a new test methodology for these materials. Best practices for ageing these materials are also described.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) helps law enforcement and criminal justice agencies ensure that the equipment they purchase and the technologies that they use are safe, dependable, and highly effective, through a research program addressing the long-term stability of high-strength fibers used in body armor. Prior work1,2has focused on the field failure of a body armor made from the material poly(p-phenylene-2,6-benzobisoxazole), or PBO, which led to a major revision to the National Institute of Justice’s (NIJ’s) body armor standard3. Since the release of this revised standard, work has continued at NIST to examine mechanisms of ageing in other commonly used fibers such as ultra-high-molar-mass polyethylene (UHMMPE)4 and poly(p-phenylene terephthalamide), or PPTA, commonly known as aramid. However, all of this work has focused on the ageing of yarns and single fibers, which is most relevant for woven fabrics. However, many body armor designs incorporate UD laminates. UD laminates are constructed of thin fiber layers (<0.05 mm) where the fibers in each layer are parallel to each other5,6,7 and the armor is constructed by stacking the thin sheets in alternating orientations, as depicted in Supplemental Figure 1a. This design relies heavily on a binder resin to hold the fibers in each layer generally parallel, as seen in Supplemental Figure 1b, and maintain the nominally 0°/90° orientation of the stacked fabrics. Like woven fabrics, UD laminates are typically constructed out of two major fiber variations: aramid or UHMMPE. UD laminates provide several advantages to body armor designers: they allow for a lower-weight armor system compared to those using woven fabrics (due to strength loss during weaving), eliminate the need for woven construction, and utilize smaller diameter fibers to provide a similar performance to woven fabrics but at a lower weight. PPTA has previously been shown to be resistant to degradation caused by temperature and humidity1,2, but the binder may play a significant role in the performance of the UD laminate. Thus, the overall effects of the use environment on PPTA-based armor are unknown8.
To date, only very preliminary work has been performed to characterize the aging of the binder resins used in these UD laminates and the effects of binder aging on the ballistic performance of the UD laminate. For example, during the development of the conditioning protocol used in NIJ Standard-0101.06, UD laminates showed visual signs of delamination and reductions in V50 after ageing1,2,8. These results demonstrate the need for a thorough understanding of the material properties with ageing, in order to evaluate the material’s long-term structural performance. This, in turn, necessitates the development of standardized methods to interrogate the failure properties of these materials. The primary goals of this work are to explore methods and best practices for accurately testing the mechanical properties of UD laminate materials and to propose a new test methodology for these materials. Best practices for ageing UD laminate materials are also described in this work.
The literature contains several examples of testing the mechanical properties of UD laminates after hot-pressing multiple layers into a hard sample9,10,11. For rigid composite laminates, ASTM D303912 can be used; however, in this study, the material is approximately 0.1 mm thick and not rigid. Some UD laminate materials are used as precursors to make rigid ballistic protective articles such as helmets or ballistic-resistant plates. However, the thin, flexible UD laminate can also be used to make body armor9,13.
The objective of this work is to develop methods for exploring the performance of the materials in soft body armor, so methods involving hot pressing were not explored because they are not representative of the way the material is used in soft body armor. ASTM International has several test-method standards relating to testing strips of fabric, including ASTM D5034-0914 Standard Test Method for Breaking Strength and Elongation of Textile Fabrics (Grab Test), ASTM D5035-1115 Standard Test Method for Breaking Force and Elongation of Textile Fabrics (Strip Method), ASTM D6775-1316 Standard Test Method for Breaking Strength and Elongation of Textile Webbing, Tape and Braided Material, and ASTM D395017 Standard Specification for Strapping, Nonmetallic (and Joining Methods). These standards have several key differences in terms of the testing grips used and the specimen size, as mentioned below.
Methods described in ASTM D5034-0914 and ASTM D5035-1115 are very similar and focus on testing standard fabrics rather than high-strength composites. For the tests in these two standards, the jaw faces of the grips are smooth and flat, although modifications are allowed for specimens with a failure stress greater than 100 N/cm to minimize the role of stick-slip-based failure. Suggested modifications to prevent slipping are to pad the jaws, coat the fabric under the jaws, and modify the jaw face. In the case of this study, the specimen failure stress is approximately 1,000 N/cm, and thus, this style of grips results in excessive sample slippage. ASTM D6775-1316 and ASTM D395017 are intended for much stronger materials, and both rely on capstan grips. Thus, this study focused on the use of capstan grips.
Further, the specimen size varies considerably among these four ASTM standards. The webbing and strapping standards, ASTM D6775-1316 and ASTM D395017, specify to test the full width of the material. ASTM D677516 specifies a maximum width of 90 mm. In contrast, the fabric standards14,15 expect the specimen to be cut widthwise and specify either a 25 mm or 50 mm width. The overall length of the specimen varies between 40 cm and 305 cm, and the gauge length varies between 75 mm and 250 mm across these ASTM standards. Since the ASTM standards vary considerably regarding specimen size, three different widths and three different lengths were considered for this study.
The terminology referring to specimen preparation in the protocol is as follows: bolt > precursor material > material > specimen, where the term bolt refers to a roll of UD laminate, precursor material refers to an unwound amount of UD fabric still attached to the bolt, material refers to a separated piece of UD laminate, and specimen refers to an individual piece to be tested.
Proper determination of the fiber direction is critical. The advantage of the method described in steps 1.4–1.6 of the protocol is that there is complete control over how many fibers are used to start the separation process. However, this does not mean that there is a complete control over the final separated region’s width, as the fibers are not fully parallel and can cross over each other. In the process of separating one batch of fibers, frequently, fibers neighboring those being separated will also be sep…
The authors have nothing to disclose.
The authors would like to acknowledge Stuart Leigh Phoenix for his helpful discussions, Mike Riley for his assistance with the mechanical test setup, and Honeywell for donating some of the materials. Funding for Amy Engelbrecht-Wiggans was provided under grant 70NANB17H337. Funding for Ajay Krishnamurthy was provided under grant 70NANB15H272. Funding for Amanda L. Forster was provided from the Department of Defense through interagency agreement R17-643-0013.
Capstan Grips | Universal grip company | 20kN wrap grips | Capstan grips used in testing |
Ceramic knife | Slice | 10558 | |
Ceramic precision blade | Slice | 00116 | |
Clamp | Irwin | quick grip mini bar clamp | |
Confocal Microscope | |||
Cutting Mat | Rotatrim | A0 metric self healing cutting mat | |
Denton Desktop sputter coater | sputter coater | ||
FEI Helios 660 Dual Beam FIB/SEM | FEI Helios | Scanning electron microscope | |
Motorized rotary cutter | Chickadee | ||
Rotary Cutter | Fiskars | 49255A84 | |
Stereo Microscope | National | DC4-456H | |
Straight edge | McMaster Carr | 1935A74 | |
Surgical Scalpel Blade | Sklar Instruments | ||
Surgical Scalpel Handle | Swann Morton | ||
Universal Test Machine | Instron | 4482 | Universal test machine |
Utility knife | Stanley | 99E |