See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257776257

An Experimental Investigation on the Response of Woven Natural Silk

Fiber/Epoxy Sandwich Composite Panels Under Low Velocity Impact

Article  in  Fibers and Polymers · January 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s12221-013-0127-2

CITATIONS READS
15 75

3 authors:

A. U. Ude Ahmad Kamal Ariffin

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
13 PUBLICATIONS   155 CITATIONS    372 PUBLICATIONS   2,267 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

C. H. Azhari
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
126 PUBLICATIONS   1,050 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Computational Mathematics View project

Symposium on Risk analysis and Safety of Technical Systems (ECF22 conference, Serbia) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by A. U. Ude on 22 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Fibers and Polymers 2013, Vol.14, No.1, 127-132 DOI 10.1007/s12221-013-0127-2

An Experimental Investigation on the Response of Woven Natural Silk

Fiber/Epoxy Sandwich Composite Panels Under Low Velocity Impact
A. U. Ude*, A. K. Ariffin, and C. H. Azhari
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment,
The National University of Malaysia, Malaysia
(Received April 20, 2012; Revised July 7, 2012; Accepted July 20, 2012)

Abstract: This paper presents results of dynamic deformation behavior of woven natural silk/epoxy sandwich composite
panels. The specimens were prepared in configurations of reinforced woven natural silk fiber (RWNSF)/Epoxy/Foam,
RWNSF/Epoxy/Coremat; RWNSF/Epoxy/Honeycomb and reinforced RWNSF/Epoxy (control material) using hand-lay-up
method. Each of the three core material was sandwiched between reinforced woven natural silk fiber/Epoxy composite face-
sheet. Drop weight impact test was carried out under 32 J impact energy. Degree of damages inflicted on the contact surface,
through thickness and rear surface were analyzed, sandwich composites performed better than the reinforced (control
material). Failure mechanism involved interlaminar matrix cracking, layer debonding, delamination and fibre breakage.
Keywords: Natural silk fibre, Impact behavior, Sandwich, Low velocity

Introduction works were found on natural fibers reinforcements [17-19]

The need of improved materials with high specific
mechanical properties, high strength and stiffness to weight
ratio has led to increasing use of sandwich composite
materials. Advanced composites in fibre, sandwich and
hybrid configurations have been used in many industries
such as automotive, aerospace, sports, marine and equipment
like military bullet-proof body armors etc. The main idea
behind these types of structures is to combine two advantages
of stiffness and strength of the thin face-sheet and lightweight
of thicker flexible core to achieve desired material properties.
To properly design a sandwich panel for engineering
applications, a thorough perceptive and characterization of
all essential materials like: face-sheet, adhesive and core as
well as the whole sandwich structure under dynamic impact
loading is indispensable. The reason being that sandwich
composites are known to be susceptible to impact damage
by foreign objects [1]. The effect of these damages on
strength and reliability of the composite structures can be
detrimental and most often lead to a sudden catastrophic
failure. Edgren et al. [2]; Hazizan and Cantwell [3]; Nemes
and Simmonds [4] has independently identified several
failure modes associated to impact of sandwich structures,
among them were: face sheet buckling, face-sheet delamination,
debounding between face-sheet and core; cracks in face-
sheet and core. This complex nature of sandwich composite
structures when subjected to impact of foreign objects has
kept their investigation an attractive research area and has
drawn much attention [5-10]. Certainly, great deals of
research have been done to understand the low velocity
impact behaviors of sandwich composites panels however,
much attention have been on synthetic fibers [11-16]. Few
*Corresponding author: albertuche@yahoo.com
while the only work found on reinforced woven natural silk
(RWNS) was reported by the same authors [20] and none
have been reported on (RWNSF) as sandwich face-sheet.
The objectives of this paper is then to present reinforced
woven natural silk/epoxy composite as face-sheet reinforcement,
considering its mechanical properties and to investigate the
effect of core materials under low velocity impact. Previous
studies by Bledzki et al. [21]; Craven et al. [22] and Perez-
Rigueriro et al. [23] showed bombyx mori natural silk as
better than Carbon fibre, E-glass, Kevlar or steel in terms of
elongation at failure. It is among the strongest fibers nature
can produce, extremely elastic, high specific-strength, high
specific-stiffness and resilient. It has a good capacity to
absorb energy and to dissipate energy in a very controlled
manner as the silk deforms [23]. Understanding their
behavior under impact load will lead to improving their
damage-resistance and enhance their application in variety
of areas.
Materials and Methods
The materials used in this experiment were: epoxy resin,
type (DER 331), Joint-mine hardener, type (905-35) employed
to facilitate curing. Core materials used were: Honeycomb,
Foam and Coremat; all were supplied by DkComposites
Melaka. Their properties are listed in the Tables below.
Bombyx mori plain woven natural silk fabric (supplied by
Loxevi Silk Indonesia) was used as the face-sheet material,
the mechanical properties were listed on (Table 2) below.
The sandwich composite specimens were prepared via hand-
lay-up method. This method provided high quality composite
samples plates with minimal defects. To fabricate the
sandwich samples, core materials were sandwiched between
1.5 mm thicknesses of RWNSF/Epoxy. Special cares were

127
128 Fibers and Polymers 2013, Vol.14, No.1 A. U. Ude et al.

Table 1. Properties of DER 331 epoxy

Density Compressive strength Tensile strength Cure time Cure temperature
Materials
(kg/m3) (MPa) (MPa) (h) (oC)
Epoxy DER 331 1084 131 63.6 9-12 23.9

Table 2. Properties of Bombyx mori plain woven natural silk fabric

Density Thickness Modulus of elasticity Ultimate strength Elongation
Materials
(g/cm-3) (mm) (Nm2) (Nm2) (%)
Bombyx mori 1.4 0.42 22 11 9

Table 3. Properties of core materials

Mat. destiny Comp. strength Tensile strength Shear strength Elongation Avr cell size Cell thickness Cell size
Materials
(kg/m3) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (%) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Coremat 48 1.1 2.0 0.9
Honeycomb 56 2.02 1.65 0.3175 12.7
Foam 52 3.17 4.27 10-175 0.6

taken to ensure that correct amount of epoxy was used in
addition to being evenly spread out. The vacuum bagging
was carefully spread over the sample; rubber squeeze was
used to remove the extra epoxy and trapped air. The
composite panels were placed in a hydraulic press at a room
temperature and pressure of 10 bar for 2 h. After being taken
out from the hydraulic press, the panels were left to cure at a
room temperature for 24 h. The panels were cut into the
specimen size for a drop weight impact test using a diamond
cuter.
Sample Specimen
Three different types of sandwich panels were investigated.
All have reinforced Bombyx mori woven natural silk fiber/
Epoxy face-sheets, while their cores were Foam, Honeycomb
and Coremat. WNS reinforced epoxy was used as the
control material. Three specimens were tested in each
configuration and the average values of impact test results
recorded.
Figure 1. Sectional view of sandwich core.
Figure 2. Actual size of all impacted composite plate specimen
(mm).
Impact Testing
The tests were performed using an instrumented drop
weight testing system (Instron-Dynatup 9250 HV). This
system is suitable for a wide variety of applications requiring
low to high impact energies. The hemispherical nose tup
used was 12.7 mm Diameter. It was assumed to be perfectly
rigid. The testing machine has a force transducer with
capacity of 22.24 kN. The total mass of the impactor used
was 5.5 kg. The composite specimen with dimensions of
100 mm by 100 mm was clamped via a hydro operated
clamp on a fixture along a circumference having a 76.2 mm
Diameter. The main reason behind the choice of an
instrumented drop weight impact testing machine for this
study was based on its ability to simulate closer to real-life
impact conditions.
Results and Discussions
Three specimens of each configuration were tested; the
average values of impact test result were recorded. As
expected, (for all the sandwich composite specimens) both
peak load and total energy absorbed increases in comparison
with reinforced woven natural silk/epoxy composite used as
control material.
Characteristics of Impact Events
The load-time profiles of the impact testing were shown in
Figure 3. It displayed how long the striker was in contact
with the impacted specimen as well as the damage stages in
the impacted specimens. The contact time was shorter with
RWNSF/Epoxy and RWNSF/Epoxy/Coremat sandwich
composite compared with RWNSF/Epoxy/Foam and RWNSF/
Epoxy/Honeycomb sandwich composite. The peak load
which is designated to the first peak point on the load-time
Low Velocity Impact Response
Figure 3. A compares load – time profiles.
Figure 3.1. Load – time profile of RWNS/Epoxy.
Figure 3.2. Load – time profile of RWNS/Epoxy/Coremat.
Figure 3.3. Load – time profile of RWNS/Epoxy/Foam.
profile is assumed as the point where the first major damage
occurred on the specimen. Siow and Shim [24] defined it as
the incipient point of damage where the first damage to the
composite plate occurred. In this investigation, all the
Fibers and Polymers 2013, Vol.14, No.1 129
Figure 3.4. Load – time profile of RWNS/Epoxy/Honeycomb.
composite configurations showed distinct incipient point of
damage at different peak load points; this phenomenon is
attributed to the difference in sandwich core materials.
Damage stages showed that load profiles remained linear
until they reached the peak value point (see Table 1 and
Figures 3.1-3.4) for clarity.
Following the damage initiation, there is a decrease in
material stiffness resulting to a sudden drop in the load -
time profile. At this point, the damage may be matrix crack
failure, with very little or no visible damage observed upon
superficial inspection of the specimen. This was evident in
the honeycomb and foam specimens (Figures 6(a) and 6(b)).
Observation of honeycomb specimen showed a localized
penetration on the front surface which induced a tensile
delamination observed on the rear side of the specimen.
Foam specimen showed a radial damage on both side, this
sign indicates matrix crack as the dominant failure mode. As
the damage continued to propagate beyond the peak load,
and once visual damage occurs, the specimens rapidly lose
their load carrying capability. The second peak in the load -
time profile, corresponds to the onset of circumferential
fracture or complete failure (note: there may be other peaks
in-between). This point is mostly characterized by fibre
fracture, delamination of layer and fibre breakage, it is
known as classical mode of failure in fibre laminated
composites Banks et al. [25]. The combinations of this
failure most often leads to penetration and perforation
damages.
Energy Absorbing Capability of Composite Sandwich
Panels
Figure 4 compares the absorption energy capability of the
sandwich composite specimens. It is assumed that all
energies absorbed up to the peak load was absorbed through
elastic deformation of the sandwich composite, all other
energies absorbed beyond this point is assumed to be
absorbed through the creation of damages. Elastic deformation
on energy profile is characterized by a linear profile. A clear
observation of these energy profiles indicates that peak load
points can only be deduced by postulation. Comparison of
the total absorbed energy, which is a combination of energies
absorbed under elastic deformation and energies absorbed
130 Fibers and Polymers 2013, Vol.14, No.1
through creation of damages, show that all the sandwich
specimens absorbed more energy compared to the reinforced
specimen (control material). It was further observed that as
long as there was no appreciable damage in the specimen,
the absorbed energy profile increases linearly. Once a dent or
penetration was noticed in the specimen, the damage
becomes localized, absorbed energy consequently reduced
and non-linear profiles were observed. These non-linear
profiles were evidence in Figure 4 at different points,
depicting that each configuration suffered certain degree of
failure at the point of peak load. Examinations of the profiles
further showed that RWNS/Epoxy/Foam had better energy
absorption capability compared with other specimens.
Figure 4. A comparison of energy – time profile.
Figure 5. Load - deflection profile.
Figure 6. Damage fragmentation of sandwich composite panels under impact load (a) RWNS/Epoxy/Honeycomb, (b) RWNS/Epoxy/Foam,
(c) RWNS/Epoxy/Coremat, and (d) RWNS/Epoxy.
A. U. Ude et al.
Effect of Configuration on Deflection
The load-deflection profile of each configuration was
shown in Figure 5. The values of deflections at peak load
were; RWNSF/Epoxy: 8.0 mm; RWNSF/Epoxy/Foam: 8.9 mm;
RWNSF/Epoxy/Honeycomb: 7.0 mm and RWNSF/Epoxy/
Coremat: 10.1 mm. Deflection on the composite materials
indicates a change in stiffness, indicating structural degradation
on the composite samples. It was clear from the results that
degradation of specimens happened independently. This
phenomenon disclosed the variety of material stiffness
among the sandwich composite configuration. Comparison
of the result of each configuration specimen showed that
their deflection values were within the range of 3 mm and
RWNSF/Epoxy/Honeycomb had the least deflection value.
Damage Fragmentation of Sandwich Composite
Figure 6(a) showed damage incurred by RWNSF/Epoxy/
Honeycomb specimen, approximately 80.18 mm2 front surface
area damage was observed. The tup (striker) penetration
damage was approximately 2 mm, matrix crack, fibre breakage
and circumferential fracture lines were observed on the
impact site. The back of the specimen showed approximately
176.74 mm2 delaminated damage area, these were characterized
by the color change in the areas affected. This failure mode
was caused by the tup striking force which exerted a tensile
force on the face-sheet. Vertical tear damage, about 60 mm
long was also observed. Figure 6(b) showed RWNS/Epoxy/
Foam specimen, the front surface area damage was
approximately 60.40 mm2 dominated by radial fracture
lines. The rear surface also showed tear and crack damaged
area of approximately 20 mm visible to physical observation.
These failures were categorized as matrix crack, delamination
and fibre fracture.
Figures 6(c) and 6(d) represents RWNSF/Epoxy/Coremat
and RWNSF/Epoxy sandwich composite specimen. Both
specimens suffered perforation damages and the fragmentation
of their damages were also similar (i.e. a combination of
Low Velocity Impact Response
Figure 7. SEM micrographs of fractured surfaces of composites
plates @ 250 magnification, showing matrix cracking, delamination
and fiber breakage at striking impact energy of 64 J. (a) WNS/
Epoxy, (b) WNS/Epoxy/Coremat, (c) WNS/Epoxy/Foam, and (d)
WNS/Epoxy/Honeycomb.
damages including matrix crack, tear, fibre breakage and
perforation). The tup travelled through the thickness leaving
the specimens with severed rear cone shaped perforation
damages. Horizontal tear damage on both side of the impact
site was noticed in both specimens. All damages incurred by
the specimens appeared localized to the impact site. These
report strongly agreed with a similar study reported by
Anderson and Madenci [26] using graphite/epoxy as
facesheet while honeycomb and foam serves as sandwich.
In summary, two dominant damage modes occurred;
delamination and matrix cracks rather than fibre fracture
were dominant in RWNSF/Epoxy/Honeycomb and RWNSF/
Epoxy/Foam sandwich specimens; while fibre breakage,
tear, penetrations and perforations were dominant in
RWNSF/Epoxy/Coremat and RWNSF/Epoxy specimens.
Mechanism of Failure
The micrographs of the impacted specimens are shown in
Figure 7; predominant failure mechanisms were seen as
combination of matrix crack, debonding of fibre matrix
interface and fibre breakage. These failure mechanisms
reports, agreed strongly with that reported by Errajhi et al.
[27] for an aluminized E-glass fibre reinforced unsaturated
polyester composites. Similar failure modes were also
reported by other researchers [28,29] for chopped glass fibre
and carbon fibre composites.
Conclusion
An investigation has been conducted to study the impact
response of reinforced Bombyx mori woven natural fibre/
Epoxy composite as face-sheet with honeycomb, foam and
coremat as sandwich core materials. A comparison of the
Fibers and Polymers 2013, Vol.14, No.1 131
load bearing capabilities, energy absorption and failure
mechanism of RWNSF/Epoxy sandwich composite panels
under drop impact weight were assessed. In terms of energy
absorption, RWNSF/Epoxy/Foam specimen showed more
energy absorption capability among other configuration.
Under load bearing capabilities, it was observed that
RWNSF/Epoxy/Coremat possess better load bearing capability
than other sandwich configurations. Under deflection,
honeycomb sandwich had the least deflection at peak load.
Physical examination of the specimens showed that RWNSF/
Epoxy (control material) and coremat sandwich specimens
suffered more damages than the others. It was evident that
most of the energies were absorbed through the formation of
damages; this occurrence was previously cited by Dhakal et
al. [30]. No rebound profile occurred in any of the specimen;
therefore the entire specimen suffered certain degree of
damage. These findings are expected to be helpful in
understanding the response of RWNSF/Epoxy sandwich
composite panels under low velocity impact loading.
References
1. X. Q. Peng and J. Cao, 15th Annual Technical Conference
of the American Society for Composite College Station,
TX Sept. 25-27, 2000.
2. M. A. Hazizan and W. J. Cantwell, Compos. Part B-Eng.,
33, 193 (2002).
3. J. A. Nemes and K. E. Simmonds, J. Compos. Mater., 26, 5
(1992).
4. F. Edgren, L. E. Asp, and P. H. Bull, J. Compos. Mater., 38,
495 (2004).
5. A. R. Othman and D. C. Barton, Compos. Struct., 85, 126
(2008).
6. G. Kress and M. Winkler, Compos. Struct., 89, 294 (2009).
7. R. A. W. Mines and N. Jones, Compos. Struct., 26, 803
(1995).
8. M. Q. Nguyen, S. S. Jacombs, R. S. Thomson, D. Hachenberg,
and M. L. Scott, Compos. Struct., 67, 217 (2005).
9. R. A. W. Mines, C. M. Worrall, and A. G. Gibson, Int. J.
Impact Eng., 21, 855 (1998).
10. W. Lestari and P. Qiao, Compos. Struct., 67, 365 (2005).
11. T. W. Chou and F. K. Ko, “Textile Structural Composites”,
Elsevier Science Publishing, New York, 1989.
12. K. N. Naik, “Woven Fabric Composites”, pp.15-23,
Technomic Publishing, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1994.
13. M. Aktas, C. Atas, B. M. Icten, and R. Karakuzu, Compos.
Struct., 87, 307 (2009).
14. J. P. Dear, H. Lee, and S. A. Brown, Int. J. Impact Eng., 32,
130 (2005).
15. E. Sevkat, B. Liaw, F. Delale, and B. B. Raju, Compos.
Part A-Appl. S., 40, 1090 (2009).
16. V. Tita, J. Carvalho, and D. Vandepitte, Compos. Struct.,
83, 413 (2008).
17. H. N. Dhakal, Z. Y. Zhang, M. O. W. Richardson, and O.
 132 Fibers and Polymers 2013, Vol.14, No.1
A. Z. Errajhi, Compos. Struct., 81, 559 (2007).
18. G. Basu, A. N. Roy, S. K. Bhattacharyya, and S. K. Ghosh,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 51, 1 (2009).
19. S. M. Sapuan and M. A. Maleque, Materials and Design,
26, 65 (2005).
20. A. U. Ude, A. K. Ariffin A. A. Lashlem, and C. H. Azhari,
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5, 289
(2011).
21. A. Bledzki and J. Gassan, Prog. Polym. Sci., 24, 221 (1999).
22. J. P. Craven, R. Cripps, and C. Viney, Compos. Part A,
Appl. Sci. Manufacturing, 31, 653 (2000).
23. J. Perez-Rigueiro, C. Viney, J. Llorca, and M. Elices, J.
Appl. Polym. Sci., 75, 1270 (2000).
24. Y. P. Siow and V. P. W. Shim, J. Compos. Mater., 32, 1178
(1998).
View publication stats
A. U. Ude et al.
25. W. M. Banks, O. S. David-West, N. V. Alexander, and D.
H. Nash, Thin-Walled Structures, 46, 860 (2008).
26. T. Anderson and E. Madenci, Compos. Struct., 50, 239
(2000).
27. O. A. Z. Errajhi, M. O. W. Richardson, and Z. Y. Zhang,
Proceedings of the Second Biannual International
Composites Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa August
24-25, 2004.
28. J. M. Corum, R. L. Battiste, and M. B. R. Wrenn, Compos.
Sci. Technol., 63, 755 (2003).
29. T. G. Rio, R. Zaera, E. Barbero, and C. Navarro, Composites,
Part B, 36, 41 (2005).
30. H. N. Dhakal, Z. Y. Zhang, M. O. W. Richardson, and O.
A. Z. Errajhi, Compos. Struct., 81, 559 (2007).