Impact Properties of Thermoplastic Composites

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/334104323
Impact properties of thermoplastic composites
Article in Textile Progress · July 2018

DOI: 10.1080/00405167.2018.1563369
CITATIONS READS
5 1,256
5 authors, including:
Ganesh Jogur Ashraf NAWAZ Khan

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
3 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Apurba Das Puneet Mahajan

Royal University of Dhaka Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
86 PUBLICATIONS 739 CITATIONS 115 PUBLICATIONS 1,737 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Design of ventilated helmets View project
Simulation of Precision Glass Molding Process View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ganesh Jogur on 26 July 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Textile Progress
ISSN: 0040-5167 (Print) 1754-2278 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ttpr20
Ganesh Jogur, Ashraf Nawaz Khan, Apurba Das, Puneet Mahajan & R.
Alagirusamy
To cite this article: Ganesh Jogur, Ashraf Nawaz Khan, Apurba Das, Puneet Mahajan & R.
Alagirusamy (2018) Impact properties of thermoplastic composites, Textile Progress, 50:3,
109-183, DOI: 10.1080/00405167.2018.1563369
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00405167.2018.1563369
Published online: 28 Jun 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 243
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ttpr20
TEXTILE PROGRESS
2018, VOL. 50, NO. 3, 109–183
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405167.2018.1563369

Ganesh Jogura, Ashraf Nawaz Khana, Apurba Dasa, Puneet Mahajanb and
R. Alagirusamya
a
Department of Textile Technology, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, New Delhi, India;
b
Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, New Delhi, India
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The excellent properties exhibited by thermoplastic composites at Thermoplastic composites;
much reduced weight have attracted attention in the development hybrid composites; natural-
of products in different sectors. Thermoplastic (TP) composites, fibre composites; textile
because of their distinctive properties as well as ease of manufac- preforms; fibre-surface
modification; plasma
turing, have emerged as a competitor against the conventional treatment; impact
thermoset resin-based composites. Depending on the application, properties; modelling;
these composites may undergo impact events at various velocities simulation
and often fail in many complex modes. Hence, the development of
TP composites having high energy-dissipation at (the desired)
much-reduced weight has become a challenging task, but it is a
problem which may be alleviated through the appropriate selection
of materials and fabrication processes. Furthermore, fibre surface
modification has been shown to increase fibre-matrix interfacial
adhesion, which can lead to improved impact resistance. Textile
preforms are helpful in acting as a structural backbone in the com-
posites since they offer a relatively free hand to the composite
designer to tailor its properties to suit a specific application.
Additionally, hybrid textile composite structures may help in
achieving the desired properties at much lower weight.
Simulation software can play a significant role in the evaluation
of composites without damaging physical samples. Once the simu-
lation result has been validated with actual experimental results, it
should be possible to predict the test outcomes for different com-
posites, with different characteristics, at different energy levels
without conducting further physical tests. Various numerical mod-
els have been developed which have to be incorporated into
these software tools for better prediction of the result.
In the current issue of Textile Progress, the effects of various
materials and test parameters on impact behaviour are critically
analyzed. The effect of incorporating high-performance fibres
and natural fibres or their hybrid combination on the impact
properties of TP composites are also discussed and the essential
properties of TP polymers are briefly explained. The effects of
fibre and matrix hybridization, environmental factors, various tex-
tile preform structures and fibre surface modification treatments
on the impact properties of thermoplastic composites are exam-
ined in detail. Various numerical models used for impact analysis
are discussed and the potential applications of TP composites in
automobile, aerospace and medical sectors are highlighted.
CONTACT R. Alagirusamy alagiru@gmail.com

ß 2019 The Textile Institute
110 G. JOGUR ET AL.
1. Thermoplastic composites
Various sectors like defence, aerospace, marine, construction, and automobile
manufacture use polymer composite structures in large quantities due to their distinct-
ive advantages over metals [1]. Composite structures, during their actual applications
may undergo different modes of mechanical breakdown such as tensile, flexural, com-
pressional and impact failure. Among these, impact damage is one of the most
important aspects of the mechanical behaviour of composites structures, which can
limit their application potential. Although metals have the disadvantage of high mass
density compared to polymer composites, still their structures exhibit good energy
attenuation during an impact event. Thus impact damage in metal structures is not
generally considered to be necessarily a terminal threat owing to their ductile nature,
which helps in absorbing a high amount of applied load. Further, when a target or
impactor hits metal structures the damage usually initiates from the impacted surface
and thus it is possible to detect the damage with the naked eye [2]. Composites are
beginning to replace these metals in some applications because of their distinctive
properties such as high specific modulus and strength, lightness in weight, durability,
corrosion resistance, design flexibility, dimensional stability, non-conductive, and
non-magnetic nature and radar transparency. However, even though composite struc-
tures have many merits over metals, they do possess some limitations.
The failure mechanism of a composite is very complex as it is made from several
layers (or lamina) to form the laminate and is highly susceptible to crack initiation and
damage propagation along the inter-laminar interfaces. Thus the structure may fail in
a wide variety of modes. The most dominant failure mechanisms observed when
impact event occurs are the complex combinations of energy absorbing mechanisms
such as:
i. delamination caused by mode II shear,

ii. matrix cracking resulted by transverse shear, and
iii. trans-laminar fracture caused by fibre rupture and kinking.
Amongst these, the delamination mode of failure predominates as it makes way to

higher crack growth, which in turn diminishes in-plane strength, stiffness and finally
leads to catastrophic failure of the composite structure. Delamination occurs in the
composite when it is subjected to:
i. static bending,
ii. tension or compressional loading,
iii. cyclic fatigue, or
iv. low to medium impact loading either during manufacturing or in service.
The mode of structural failure depends on the type of impact energy involved in
an event. A complete penetration or structural damage can be observed when a pro-
jectile with high velocity hits the composite, and it is possible to detect the damage
with the naked eye as there is both surface and body damage. By contrast, in low-
velocity impact loading, internal damage (delamination) causes sub-surface degradation
TEXTILE PROGRESS 111
which is more difficult to detect with the naked eye, but potentially may lead to severe
diminution in strength and stiffness [3].
The selection of type of fibre and matrix system to combine in the composite
structure is a crucial step as these components have significant effects on the impact
performance of the composite. Both the fibre and matrix have to perform particular
functions when embedded into the composite structures:
The fibre acts as a reinforcing material, that is a load-bearing compound in the
composite. The influence of fibre type and properties on the impact behaviour of
composite structures is discussed in detail in Section 2.1.1.
The reinforcing fibres are surrounded by a matrix which may be polymeric, cer-
amic or metallic. The primary function of any matrix is to assist in keeping the fibres
in the desired location with controlled fibre placement or orientation. Additionally,
the matrix also acts as a load-distributing agent between the fibres, thus preventing
buckling of fibres within the composite during compression loading. Furthermore,
the resin helps to protect the fibres from both mechanical and environmental dam-
age [1]. Textile composite structures may contain either thermosetting resins or a
thermoplastic matrix; the matrix is an important component, for example it is esti-
mated that slight damage in the matrix can reduce the load-bearing capability of a
composite by 50% [4]. Until recently, thermosetting polymer composites have been
predominant because of their excellent structural, mechanical and chemical proper-
ties in many applications; the thermoset composites have excellent resistance to sol-
vents, abrasion, and corrosion and also good dimensional stability, fatigue and creep
properties. However, thermosetting resins are not recyclable or repairable once they
have undergone the curing process and thus pose difficulties in disposal. When
these composites are subjected to excessive heat, they undergo chemical decompos-
ition before degrading and whilst they possess some thermal stability, the resins are
not be able to withstand very high temperatures as they degrade at temperatures
around 170–180 C. The fabrication process for a thermoset composite is somewhat
complex as it involves further components in addition to the base resin such as cur-
ing agents, hardeners, and flowing agents. In the curing stage, the polymer mole-
cules in the thermoset undergo chemical reactions with these additives and form
three dimensional cross-links, and thus make the composite permanently hard and
rigid. Owing to their rigidity and low elongation properties, thermosetting resins
demonstrate poorer energy absorption than a thermoplastic matrix [5]. Several stud-
ies have been conducted to try to improve fracture toughness or impact resistance
by adding plasticizers, rubbers or thermoplastic particles to the thermoset resin.
However, there is a reduction in mechanical properties even after increasing fracture
resistance, maybe because the enhancement made to pure thermoset matrix by the
addition of the above-mentioned particles cannot be transferred efficiently to the
composites due to the presence of fibres which hinders the growth of plastic regions
in the matrix [2].
Owing to the limitations imposed by the aforementioned problems associated with
thermosetting-resin based composites, the present trend is to move towards the
development of more-advanced composite structures using thermoplastic polymers to
replace the thermosetting resin system. Since the 1980s, thermoplastic (TP) composites
112 G. JOGUR ET AL.
Figure 1. Elastic-plastic behaviour of thermoplastic polymers [8].
applications have been expanding rapidly in many sectors such as aerospace, automo-
tive, marine, mass transportation, and construction [6]. As the fabrication process con-
sists only of cooling and heating cycles and there are no chemical reactions involved,
these composites offer the opportunity to implement quick and efficient processing
technology [5,7]. Also, unlike thermosetting-resin composites, the thermoplastic com-
posites can be reshaped/repaired upon the application of heat and this cycle can be
repetitive. Regarding impact resistance, thermoplastic polymers exhibit good elastic-
plastic behaviour as seen in Figure 1 and thus possess better impact performance
than their thermosetting resin counterparts. During loading and unloading, the poly-
mer chains in thermoplastics undergo morphological reorganization, so the chains can
be stretched substantially prior to rupturing and as they have good strain to failure,
therefore they exhibit excellent impact and fatigue resistance [6–9]. Because of the
aforementioned properties TP composites find applications where the objects into
which they are incorporated are subjected to low, medium, high, and ballistic impact
forces. Some of the applications of these composites are reported in the final section
of this particular issue of Textile Progress.
Like the other polymer composite systems, thermoplastic composites also suffer
from some limitations. The most important one is possession of poor fibre-matrix
adhesion (poor interface) due to inadequate resin penetration into the fibre architec-
ture thereby causing an increase in void content in the composite. The polymer melts
also have substantially higher viscosity as compared to thermosetting resins. Due to
their high viscosity, it is hard to introduce the molten thermoplastic resins into a
closed and firmly woven textile fabric. In other words, it is difficult to load resin into
the pores created by the yarn interlacings; the high viscosity of the polymer melt
results in de-alignment of the reinforcing fibres at the time of consolidation and this
leads to the generation of voids within the final composite structure. To overcome
such problems, high injection pressures and heavier moulds are employed. Also, by
reducing the melt-flow distance in the consolidation process, it is possible to over-
come the above limitations. The melt-flow distance can be minimized by thorough
mixing of the thermoplastic matrix polymer with reinforcing fibre even before the pre-
forming operation. Commingling, powder coating, hot melt, slurry, emulsion, solution,
film, and surface polymerization techniques are ways of achieving reduced melt-flow
distance, among all of which, it is the commingling and powder-coating techniques
that can produce prepregs with considerable flexibility, a critical requirement in textile
preforming [5,10,11].
2. Classification of impact velocity

In general, impact phenomena are classified as follows:
i. Low-velocity impact (<11 m/s), which occur through damage from dropped tools,
cargo containers, service trucks during maintenance services.
ii. High-velocity impact (>11 m/s) damage results by sources like debris from the
runway hitting the fuselage during take-off and landing, ice from propellers strik-
ing fuselage, hail, and bird strikes.
iii. Ballistic impact (>500 m/s). Damage due to ballistic impact is usually related to
military applications.
iv. Hypervelocity damage (>2000 m/s) is what happens when space debris
hits spacecraft.
Impact velocity is usually simplified down to two categories, ie low velocity and high
velocity based on the mass and velocity of the projectile employed during incident.
The low-velocity impact happens when a large mass of projectile (eg a dropped tool)
hits the target at low energy, as distinct from that when a projectile of low mass (run-
way debris, small-arms fire) penetrates the target at high speed which is known as a
high-velocity impact [12]. The definition of ‘low-velocity impact’ is not particularly clear:
a. Cantwell and Morton [4] considered various simulated impact test techniques
such as the Instrumental Falling Weight Impact Tester (IFWIT), the Charpy Impact
Test and Izod Impact Test, and defined velocities less than 0.01 km/s as low-
velocity impacts.
b. By contrast, it is velocity less than 0.1 km/s that is considered as low-velocity
impact by Arbate [13].
c. In a different approach, Olsson [14] defines high and low-velocity impact through
two situations based on what happens on impact. The situation where a small
mass impactor is shot at a high velocity, in which duration of impact between
impactor and target equals the time required for the flexural and shear waves to
reach boundary conditions, is called high-velocity impact. The situation where a
heavy mass impactor is shot at very low velocity and the duration of impact is
much larger than the time taken for the flexural and shear waves to reach the
boundary conditions, is called low-velocity impact.
The dominating factor in both high and low-velocity impact is the propagation of
the stress wave through the target. High-velocity impact causes localized damage in
114 G. JOGUR ET AL.
the target as the duration of contact between impactor and target is very low.
Here, the impact event is completed before the stress wave reaches the edge of the
structure and hence boundary condition effect is ignored in a high-velocity impact. By
contrast, the duration of contact between impactor and target is very high in low-
velocity impact events, and thus the target absorbs more energy by elastic deform-
ation. Any event considered as quasi-static, the upper limit of which can vary from
0.01 to 0.1 km/s depending on target stiffness, material properties, impactor mass, and
€blom et al. [15] and
stiffness, is classified as a low-velocity impact according to Sjo
Shivakumar and co-workers [16].
Liu and Malvern [17] and Joshi and Sun [18] reported that when damage is the crit-
ical parameter, it is possible to classify low and high-velocity impacts based on the
damage experienced by the target. In that sense, the low-velocity impact is generally
characterized by delamination and matrix cracking whereas high-velocity impact
results in penetration-induced fibre rupture. Olsson’s way of classifying impact phe-
nomenon is found to be reasonable as it considers energy associated with impact and
contact time. However, based on simplicity and the testing point of view, a velocity
on impact of less than 0.1 km/s is considered as a low-velocity impact by many
researchers [19].
The difference between these opinions about the appropriate way to define impact
leads to many confusions among the researchers while conducting studies on impact.
Researchers might adopt their own approach or choose to follow any one from the
above classification methods for the impact test, and these differences lead to differ-
ent engineering data collection across the globe. Therefore, it is of pressing import-
ance to establish a single standard classification for the impact test, either based on
the damage experienced by the composite or based on the velocity of impact. For
preference, the impact classification based on the damage assessment may be the
most effective since it is independent of velocity.
2.1. Factors affecting the impact properties

2.1.1. Material properties
The prime constituents of fibre-reinforced composites are the fibre, the matrix and a
fine interphase region, which determines the strength of bonding between fibre and
matrix. Chemical and mechanical properties of these individual components decide
the way in which the composite material deforms and ruptures. Composites fail in dif-
ferent modes; the quantity of energy absorption by these fracture modes depends
upon the properties of the individual constituents of the composites and loading
modes. In general terms, the failure modes involving fracture of the interphase region
or matrix show low fracture energies, whereas by contrast, failure modes involving
fibre rupture show high energy dissipation [4].
i. Fibre type and properties

The fibre acts as a reinforcing material, that is a load-bearing material in composites
and significantly contributes to their strength and stiffness. The ability of a composite
to perform well against low-velocity impact depends on its ability to store energy elas-
tically. High-performance fibres possess a high elastic modulus in comparison to the
matrix system, and hence such fibres show high rigidity under impact loading whereas
the matrix and interphase region are more prone to initial damage.
The most-commonly used reinforcing fibres are carbon, KevlarV, ultra high molecular
R
weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) and glass fibres. Within each of this category, fibres
exhibiting a wide range of mechanical properties are available. Fibres such as UHMWPE,
KevlarV 49 have high strain to failure ratio and hence possess good impact resistance.
R
Glass fibres are less expensive and have low strength and low modulus but show better
impact resistance than carbon fibres due to higher strain at failure (3.2%). Carbon
fibres have the highest strength and modulus and therefore find applications in aircraft
industries. However, carbon fibre shows reduced impact resistance as compared to
glass fibre due to its brittle nature, which in turn, is a consequence of its low strain-to-
failure (0.5–2.4%). Glass fibre absorbs approximately three times elastic energy than do
carbon fibres [2,4,18]. Other than fibre modulus, strength and strain properties, some
researchers have tried to analyse the influence of fibre length, fibre diameter and their
concentration on the impact performance of the composites. Amongst them, Thomson
et al. [20] have studied the influence of fibre length and fibre concentration (Vf) on the
impact properties of glass-reinforced polypropylene composites. The results revealed
that impact strength increases linearly with the increase in fibre concentration.
However, the rate of increase is dependent on the fibre length. Use of long length fibre
leads to a more rapid increase in impact strength while short fibres provide little or no
improvement at all. At short fibre length, the impact strength is approximately equal to
unreinforced polypropylene. As the fibre length increases the impact resistance also
increases until a plateau level is reached at about 6 mm length. This plateau level is pro-
portional to the fibre concentration. A similar observation is found from Himanshu
Bisaria et al. [21] who investigated the effect of fibre length on impact properties of ran-
domly oriented short-jute-fibre reinforced epoxy composites. They found that impact
strength and impact energy increase with increase in fibre length from 5 mm to 20 mm.
In general, composites made from long fibre length/continuous fibre provide good
impact and other mechanical properties. Fibres having a length less than a critical fibre
length may not be able to absorb and transfer the load to the neighbouring fibres,
hence fail before reaching the full load. Somehow, the influence of diameter on impact
properties was not investigated fully although it is known that modern composite
industries utilize fibres with small diameter since they offer high strain to failure, result-
ing in high impact energy absorption. However, some pull-out test models suggest that
composites with high diameter fibre reinforcement are inherently tougher and provide
greater resistance to the impact energy [4].
ii. Reinforcement geometry
Properties of composite structures do not only depend on the matrix and reinforc-
ing material but also are affected by a factor called reinforcement geometry. In the
case of injection-moulded short fibre composites, only the concentration of
strengthening fibre is controlled, not their orientation or dimension. For the case of
much longer fibres, they are bundled and made into a continuous yarn to produce
much stronger composites [22]. Fibre orientation is an essential parameter, which
116 G. JOGUR ET AL.
affects the impact performance in unidirectional, bidirectional and 3D preformed

composite structures. Bidirectional structures, due to the presence of interlace-
ments and crossover points, show better impact resistance over non-woven or
chopped strand mat laminates. Proper mixing of unidirectional and woven layers
help to improve the impact damage resistance by reducing the overall failure of
the composite structure.
Woven composites offer greater resistance to impact damage through the pres-
ence in their structures of crossover points, which act as stress distributors. They
also possess high toughness and provide good resistance to initiation of inter-
laminar cracks compared to other textile composite structures. A plain woven
structure with its maximum number of interlacings per woven design repeat unit
provides excellent energy dissipation and shows better impact resistance than more
loosely-woven structures. When plain-woven reinforced laminates are impacted
beyond the threshold energy level, they show crack initiation within the ply which
cannot continue through the thickness, because they are resisted by a high number
of interlacements. If the energy imparted is not high enough to rupture the fibre
tow, the propagation of a crack is arrested suppressing the initiation and progression
of delamination, and reducing the prospect of delamination damage.
Use of 3D textile preforms in composites in various structures such as orthogonally
woven, multi-axial warp knitted, multi-layered woven interlocked and stitched pro-
vide excellent impact resistance and damage tolerance by reducing crack propaga-
tion [23,24]. Many research studies reported that composites made from 3D woven
and multi-axial warp knitted structures exhibited less shear damage and better resist-
ance to impact penetration over composites made from 2D woven structures under
impact tests [25,26].
High-performance fibres such as KevlarV or glass are used in the form of pinning
R
or stitching yarns to improve the damage resistance [27,28]. Studies have shown a
slight improvement, or reduction, or even no change in tensile strength using
stitched laminates. Compressive strength, however, shows a loss of magnitude of
between 5% and 55%. The variation in mechanical properties is due to the stitching
and is dependent on factors like fibre type, fibre orientation, stitching parameters,
and test methods [29,30].
Knitted textile preforms, due to their isotropic nature and better stress distribution
throughout the structure, provide better impact resistance over woven structures.
Knitted textile reinforced composites possess superior retention of compressive
strength after impact events over braided, uni-directional fabric and prepreg tape
composites [19].
iii. Matrix type and properties
Thermoplastic resin-based composites offer several advantages over the well-known
thermosetting resins such as higher impact resistance due to their higher toughness
characteristics. High-temperature thermoplastic resins such as PEEK, PEI, PPS, and PES
are promising materials, as they generally offer enhanced mechanical properties in
comparison to the classical advantages of commodity thermoplastic materials.
Moreover, thermoplastics maintain their physical properties up to their glass-transition
temperatures and exhibit good thermal stability even in the longer run [31,32].
Vieille et al. [33] reported that the impact behaviour of carbon-fibre composites
impregnated with thermoplastic (PEEK and PPS) resins had yielded smaller delamin-
ation areas after impact compared to thermosetting resins under low-velocity
impact conditions due to their high toughness. The study reported by J. Kim at al.
[34] shows the importance of cooling rate on the impact behaviour of thermoplastic
composites. Fast-cooled carbon/PEEK laminates (20 C/min) offer greater resistance
to impact loading as compared to slowly cooled laminates (1 C/min). Gonzalez
et al. [35] studied the effect of low-temperatures on the impact performance of
PEEK-based short carbon fibre reinforced composites. They concluded that the
energy absorption of the composite was decreased severely at 50 C and 75 C.
The result is mainly attributed to the transition of polymer nature from ductile to
brittle. The decrease in temperature lowers/arrests the segmental chain mobility of
polymer and thus results in phase transition.
Each polymer shows distinctive characteristic due to change in morphological
and chemical structure. These polymer properties further influence the mechanical,
thermal and chemical properties of the composites made from them. The high work
of rupture associated with these polymers provides a greater amount of energy
absorption compared to that of a brittle thermosetting resin.
2.1.2. Test parameters

The low-velocity impact behaviour of composites is significantly affected by the type
of impactor, specimen specifications and test parameters used in testing. The type of
material, mass, size, shape, incident velocity, incident energy, drop mode, and angle of
impact are the important parameters of the impactor that affect energy absorption
of the composite material. Similarly, specimen parameters affecting the impact behav-
iour are the specimen history, shape, thickness, clamping method, and specimen
support [19].
i. Impactor parameters
The term projectile or impactor is used for any item capable of being launched. The
target is defined as any moving or stationary object struck by the projectile.
Projectiles can be categorized as soft, semi-hard, or hard depending on the material
used and the degree of deformation they undergo during impact. Soft projectiles
undergo significant deformation during impact, semi-hard projectiles experience
some deformation, while hard projectiles experience small or negligible deformation
and in this case the response is mainly dominated by the target response [12]. In
use, aircraft composite structures not only experience impacts from rigid projectiles
such as runway debris, but also from soft body projectiles such as bird strikes and
hailstones. In such conditions, the impactor is deformable and spreads the load over
a wide area of the structure.
Most commonly, impact events occur with rigid impactors which are in different
shapes such as flat, conical, semi-spherical or semi-cylindrical. The shape of the
impactor influences damage initiation [19]. Lee et al. [36] studied the effect of
impactor shape on the failure mechanism and energy dissipation. Photographs of
impactors used in this study are shown in Figure 2. They concluded that flat and
118 G. JOGUR ET AL.
Figure 2. Photographs of (a) conical, (b) flat, (c) semi-spherical, and (d) semi-cylindrical
impactors [36].
semi-spherical impactors provide similar failure mechanisms and energy dissipation.

However the internal damage caused by the semi-spherical impactor is relatively
greater. Since a flat impactor has higher surface area, it causes more surface damage.
A vertically propagating crack is seen with the semi-cylindrical type of impactor com-
pared to the local indentation that occurs in both flat and semi-spherical types, and
this failure mechanism helps to give increased energy dissipation in the specimen.
Low energy dissipation observed in the case of conical type impactor is due to local
penetration. Similar results were observed in other studies as well [37].
The work of rupture increases with increasing loading rate (impact velocity) due
to the rate-dependent fracture properties of reinforced fibres. Fibre failure stress in
the composite increases with the increase in impact velocity as a result of stored
elastic energy, which in turn increases crack initiation and results in large damage
area after impact. The increase in impactor mass and velocity results in higher peak
contact force along with a reduction in maximum displacement and unaltered max-
imum impact energy. The size of the damage zone decreases with increase in
impactor size for the same incident energy. Highest damage size is observed with a
small size impactor having high impact velocity at the same impact energy [19].
Bandaru et al. [38] reported the influence of projectile mass, diameter and its vel-
ocity on the ballistic limit of KevlarV/PP composites, by keeping the impact energy
R
constant. Effect of these projectile parameters on the ballistic limit is presented in

Figure 3. The ballistic limit is the velocity at which the projectile penetrates the tar-
get 50% of the time. In other words, the projectile will not penetrate the target
below this limit value; an increase in ballistic limit indicates good ballistic impact
resistance. The study reveals that by keeping the projectile mass and velocity con-
stant, the ballistic limit increases with the increase in the diameter of the projectile.
An increase in diameter of the projectile provides higher surface area and therefore
offers more contact area between the target and projectile, thus the target absorbs
more energy when the diameter of the projectile increases, and hence provides a
higher ballistic limit. The study also shows that the ballistic limit decreases with the
increase in mass of the projectile (while keeping the diameter constant). As the mass
of the projectile is increased, the energy absorbed by the target decreases, and
hence the ballistic limit falls. A higher velocity of the projectile increases the residual
velocity and hence decreases the ballistic limit.
Figure 3. Influence of projectile mass, diameter, and its velocity on ballistic limit and energy
absorption [38].
ii. Specimen parameters

a. Thickness
Naik et al. [39,40] demonstrated a linear relationship between peak contact
force and composite thickness. A reduction in thickness increased the dis-
placement, while the impact duration grew with an increase in composite
thickness. Morais et al. [41] concluded that impact resistance of composites
as a function of thickness relies on the impact energy. The impact resistance
to thickness correlation is governed by the cross-section of the composites
under the point of impact for energies below 3.7J. For a low impact energy,
the resistance to repeated impact increases only with an increase in thickness
and is independent of the fibre reinforcement used.
By contrast, in the case of high impact energy, resistance to repeated
impacts is dependent on the laminate thickness, the fibre used, and on the
spatial distribution of the fibres. The size of the damage after impact also
depends on the thickness of laminates. Higher damage size is expected with
low thickness laminates and vice versa.
From the above studies, it can be concluded that the thickness of compo-
sites does have an effect on both low and high-velocity impact performance
as well as on post-impact behaviour. The increase in thickness provides more
contact time between composite and impactor and thus helps to absorb
more energy and dissipate it, which further results in increased impact resist-
ance. A similar trend may be observed when the post-impact test is carried out.
b. Stiffness and Size
Contact duration and peak force are the important parameters in understand-
ing the impact response of composite structures. Stiffer structures show
shorter contact time with higher peak force than softer structures [19]. The
same phenomenon can be observed in the case of thermosetting resin com-
posites. Composites made from cross-linked thermosetting resin are stiffer
and brittle. Subjecting them to low-velocity impact results in short contact
time between target and impactor, therefore, the target absorbs all energy at
a localized point without dissipating it and results in poor impact attenuation
and poor impact strength. However, soft structures may also fail in brittle
120 G. JOGUR ET AL.
fashion and show poor impact performance, especially when the impact vel-
ocity is too high and the contact time is too low to allow dissipation of the
applied energy.
The areal geometrical configuration (size of the specimen) of a target spe-
cimen is of less significance at high rates of strain as the specimen fails with
a localized penetration. Hence, under certain conditions, small specimens are
sufficient to characterize the high-velocity impact response of composites
using lightweight projectiles. In the case of low-velocity impact loading, the
size of the specimen or component is a critical parameter in determining its
dynamic response. Here again, the response of the target, as well as the
amount of damage incurred, are related to the target’s ability to store energy
elastically. The nature of the structure can play an important role; for
instance, as a result of the lower level of transverse constraint, beams used in
building construction tend to be capable of absorbing more energy than
larger structures such as circular plates, but care has to be taken when using
simple beam-like specimens to evaluate the dynamic response of more com-
plex structures [4]. One must also be careful while comparing the impact
response of a large, complex-shaped specimen with a small, simple laboratory
specimen because the mode of failure differs from small to large-sized speci-
men. Addition to the specimen size, span length to diameter ratio of the tar-
get specimen also plays a vital role in determining the mode of failure for
low-velocity impacts.
Long, thin (high span-length to diameter ratio) specimens undergo pure
bending and may fail in a flexural mode while exhibiting the highest flexural
properties, whereas short-thick specimens (low span-length span length to
diameter ratio) show lower modulus of elasticity and lower modulus of rup-
ture and fail in an inter-laminar mode. With the increase in specimen size, its
capability to absorb energy on low-velocity impact increases, however, dou-
bling the specimen size may not necessarily increase the energy absorption to
an equivalent extent. Some tests on carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP)
showed the ability of the target sample to absorb energy elastically, which
resulted in a linear increase in low-velocity first-damage threshold energy as
well as in the perforation limit. An increase in the size of the target does not
necessarily increase its impact resistance. For example, a small beam may be
capable of absorbing greater energy than a large circular plate [42].
2.1.3. Fabrication parameters

i. Voids
The presence of air bubbles (created due to the absorbed moisture) and solvents
within the composite layers volatilise and expand during the curing cycle and result in
the formation of voids. The presence of voids in composites significantly degrades
their mechanical properties. By careful selection of curing temperature and pressure,
the void content can be reduced but taking such steps leads to high processing costs
[43]. Void/porosity mainly affects the matrix and interface-dominated properties such
as inter-laminar shear strength and impact strength [44]. Other mechanical properties
such as tensile, compression, and shear plane strength are also affected to a smaller
extent, although not negligible [45]. Macropores are formed when resin viscosity is
low, and micropores are formed when the flow is governed by capillary flow (high vis-
cosity) [46]. Researchers agree that the presence of 0.5–1% porosity by volume of the
fraction in fibre-reinforced composites does not affect the mechanical properties.
However, an increased level of porosity does affect the mechanical properties of fibre
composites [45].
ii. Ply stacking sequence and orientation angle
The stacking sequence is one among several critical factors affecting the impact
damage and composite materials can offer distinctive properties over conventional
materials through careful selection of fibre stacking sequence [47,48]. Stacking order
affects the damage resulting from impact with foreign objects. Several researchers
have carried out many experiments to understand the role of stacking sequence in
resisting impact damage, but still there is no clarity in the relation between stacking
sequence and impact damage resistance, perhaps because of the complex way in
which damage propagates within the laminate [48]. Ply order has been proved to be
significant for all the mechanical properties of the composite either individually or in
interaction with ply angle [49]. Dorey [50] concluded that inclusion of ±45 plies in a
laminate would enhance the impact resistance and residual strength compared to 0
plies alone. This improvement is due to the increased flexibility of the laminate, which
further increased its ability to absorb energy elastically. Hong and Liu [51] studied the
effect of change in ply angles(ø) of laminates. They found that the delamination area
increased remarkably with increasing ply angle. Strait et al. [52] analysed the effect of
impact energy over damage area for woven, cross-ply, quasi-isotropic layups. The
study reported that the quasi-isotropic sequence showed the highest damage-
resistance capability and decreased damage area.
Hitchen et al. [47] conducted a study on the effect of stacking sequence of plies ori-
ented at 0 , 45 , 45 , and 90 . The authors concluded that laying ±45 plies in sur-
face layers and increasing the number of dissimilar interfaces within the laminate
would increase the absorption of damage initiation energy. Hazzard et al. [53] studied
the effect of fibre orientation of thin UHMWPE (DyneemaV, Royal DSM, Heerlan,
R
Netherlands) composite laminates at 150 J impact energy using a blunt hemispherical

impactor. The study showed that the quasi-isotropic laminates had an average of 43%
lower maximum back-face deflection as compared with 0 /90 laminates. Also, a great
reduction in time to reach the maximum back-face deflection was observed.
Karduman et al. [54] studied the effect of stacking sequence of jute/PP nonwoven
and flax/maleated polypropylene (MAPP) woven fabrics on the mechanical properties
of hybrid composites using film stacking method. They concluded, (using N to repre-
sent nonwoven and W to represent woven), that the stacking sequence of NWWN had
shown higher impact energy absorption over NWNW and WNNW due to the high
energy-absorbing property of the top-layered needle punched nonwoven fabric and
the existence of stress concentrations at the adjacent interfaces. Fuoss et al. [48] pro-
posed a ‘damage resistance parameter’ to predict the impact damage in a composite
laminate with change in the ply order sequence.
122 G. JOGUR ET AL.
3. Thermoplastic resin systems

Thermoplastic polymer resins emerged as a new class of composite materials in the
second half of the 1980s. These resins offered completely new and automated fabrica-
tion processes owing to their ability to be heated and re-formed repeatedly [55].
Thermoplastic resins are of two types: semi-crystalline and amorphous. Semi-crystalline
thermoplastic resins have both crystalline and amorphous structures present together,
and are characterized by the presence of a three-dimensional ordered network of
polymer chains. Amorphous thermoplastics display a disordered arrangement of their
polymer molecules. The total crystallinity achieved in semi-crystalline thermoplastic
polymer materials depends on the crystal size, orientation, and polymer chain length.
Some examples of thermoplastics that are likely to be in a semi-crystalline state, and
in wide use, are polyethylene, polypropylene, polyamides, polyphenylene, polyether
ether ketone, and polyarylketone. Both semi-crystalline and amorphous thermoplastics
are available in various forms including films, powders and filaments. When these res-
ins are reinforced with fibres, they are available as injection moulding compounds,
compression-mouldable random sheets, unidirectional (UD) tapes, towpregs (pre-
impregnated fibre bundles) and woven prepegs (pre-impregnated woven fabrics). The
increase in speed of processing, production of complex structures, excellent thermal
stability and corrosion resistance offered by thermoplastic resins are pushing them
into applications in the automotive, electronics and chemical processing industries.
One recent development in the composites industry is the combination of long and
continuous fibres with high-performance semi-crystalline thermoplastics; such composites
show several merits over existing materials. These resins provide better corrosion and
solvent resistance than amorphous polymers and in some cases better than thermosetting
resins. The presence of some crystalline structure helps the composite to retain its proper-
ties above the glass transition temperature. Such materials can be used where the tem-
perature is above their Tg, depending on their loading conditions. Some semi-crystalline
thermoplastics exhibit inherent flame resistance, excellent toughness and mechanical
properties at elevated temperatures and even after impact. Their inherent flame resistance
makes them a good candidate for aircraft interiors, ship and submarine applications. Their
superior toughness makes them a viable candidate for aircraft leading edges and doors
where impact damage is of prime importance. Semi-crystalline polymers have low mois-
ture and low outgassing property, hence are widely found applications in space struc-
tures. For EMI shielding also nickel coated carbon-thermoplastic composites are used.
Semi-crystalline and amorphous thermoplastics do have some demerits such as lack
of design database, lower 0 compression properties than epoxy resins of 180 C and
lower creep resistance. However, semi-crystalline polymers show better creep resist-
ance than amorphous polymers. Thermoplastic composites do undergo thermal expan-
sion during high processing temperatures, therefore care must be taken to avoid the
differences in thermal expansion between resin and moulding tool.
Amorphous thermoplastic polymers are characterized by the random orientation of
the polymer molecules in their structure; the most-commonly utilized amorphous
thermoplastic resins include polysulfones, polyamide-imides, polyphenylene sulfones,
polyphenylene sulphide sulfones, polyethersulfones, polystyrene, polyetherimides, and
polyacrylates. These polymers do have higher temperature stability over semi-crystalline
polymers some of which is attributable to their higher glass transition temperatures

(above 260 C). Processing of these polymers is much simpler compared to their semi-
crystalline counterparts as they have low melt viscosity, low crystalline structure, and
less shrinkage. However, these resins exhibit lower creep and solvent resistance and
poor property retention once the glass transition temperature is exceeded. Additionally,
these polymeric resins need to be dried before processing as they are hygroscopic in
nature (necessary because the presence of moisture leads to the formation of voids in
the composite structure). Any of the component-joining techniques mentioned for the
semi-crystalline polymers can be used for the amorphous polymers and also, the
solvent-bonding technique which cannot be used for many semi-crystalline thermoplas-
tics, can be used to join parts in the case of amorphous thermoplastics.
Amorphous thermoplastic polymers find their applications in medicine, communica-
tions, transportation, chemical processing, electronics and aerospace either in unfilled
or in short-fibre reinforced composite form. Whereas the unfilled polymers are used in
aircraft canopies, cookware, power tools, corrosion resistance piping, business
machines, and medical instruments, the short-fibre reinforced forms find applications in
printed circuit boards, electrical connections, jet-engine components, transmission parts,
and under-the-hood automotive applications. Continuous fibre-reinforced amorphous
thermoplastic composites are also used in more-demanding applications such as in the
fabrication of aircraft interior components, floorings, wing skins, and fuselage sections.
In addition to commonly used amorphous polymers, there is a special class of
amorphous thermoplastics such as condensation-cured polyimides, polyamide-imides
such as TorlonV (Solvay Advanced Polymers), and polyamides with more flexible back-
R
bones such as AvimidR K3B, NR 150B2 and the LaRC polymers have been developed
by NASA. The specialty of these polyimides is that they occupy a position between
thermosetting resins and thermoplastic polymers and thus possess an excellent solv-
ent resistance and have a high-temperature operation limit just like typical epoxy and
phenolic thermosetting resins. Processing conditions require temperature greater than
290 C with consolidation pressure beginning at 1.4MPa. However, these condensation
cured thermoplastics have not found more applications than the virgin thermoplastic
polymer as they need to be processed in a similar way as that for thermosetting res-
ins. Volatiles generated during curing cause laminate porosity if the applied pressure
is not high enough to extinguish void nucleation and growth; their maximum operat-
ing temperature is less than the thermosetting polyimide [56].
Many manufacturing methods/techniques are available to fabricate thermoplastic
composites (semi crystalline/amorphous) in a wide array of profiles, dimensions, and
quality. Some of these are thermo-forming, autoclave moulding, diaphragm forming,
roll forming, filament winding, and pultrusion (a process for forming laminates of par-
ticular cross-section in a very reproducible manner by pulling filaments, precisely posi-
tioned by guides and impregnated with resin, into a die where the assembly is
moulded into the required shape). In these methods, processing temperature must be
above thermoplastic polymer’s melting point, i.e., a temperature ranging from 260 to
370 C (500 –700 F) for high-thermal-stability thermoplastics. The pressure required
for thermoplastic processing varies; it may be as high as 34 MPa for stamp moulding
to as low as 0.7 MPa for thermoforming. Finished thermoplastic parts can be joined by
124 G. JOGUR ET AL.
various methods like ultrasonic welding, infrared heating, vibration, hot air/gas, and
adhesives [56]. In addition to commodity thermoplastic materials such as PP, PE or PA,
there is another family known as high-performance thermoplastic polymers. High-
temperature thermoplastics are effectively used in structural engineering applications
where composites need to be exposed to both high mechanical and thermal loadings.
They generally offer enhanced mechanical properties and retain their physical proper-
ties even at high temperatures and show good thermal stability for a long time [6].
Both commodity thermoplastics and high-performance thermoplastic polymers are dis-
cussed briefly in this section. Table 1 shows important properties of a range of useful
thermoplastic polymers.
3.1. Polypropylene (PP)

The fabrication technique of PP based composites is very simple as its melting tempera-
ture is relatively low (180 C). PP shows good solvent and chemical resistance and
exhibits high toughness, medium stiffness, and good strength. Most commonly, it is
short and long fibre injection/extrusion/compression moulding techniques that are used
to produce PP-based composites [6]. The chemical structure of PP is shown in Figure 4.
Table 1 Properties of thermoplastic resins (reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis Ltd, http://
www.tandfonline.com).
Density TS TM Impact Elongation
Thermoplastics (g/cm3) Tg ( C) Tm ( C) (MPa) (GPa) strength (%)
Polypropylene (Molpen HP500V) 0.910 10 170.9 28.0 2 1.1 J/cm 20
Polylactide (2002D) 1.24 47.0 154.8 56.3 3.6 — 5
Polylactide (4032D) 1.24 50.7 171.2 65.8 3.6 — 7
Polyester 1.2 — — 61 4 — 2.5
Nylon 11 — — — 30-70 — 16-110 J/m 2-56
Nylon 12 — — — 25-59 — 16-160 J/m 0.60-200
Nylon 46 — — — 30-214 — 40-100 J/m 0.6-53
Nylon 6 — — — 37-98 — 10-98 J/m 0.40-25
Nylon 610 — — — 47-66 — 35-50 J/m 2.4-100
Nylon 612 — — — 26-173 — 29-89 J/m 2.0-32
Nylon 66 — — — 42-91 — 10-95 J/m 0.7-19
Phenolic plastics — — — 0.2 9 — —
Polyethylene (HDPE) 0.96 110 (-166) 130 26 1.4 — —
Polyethylene (LLDPE) 0.93 — 124 14 0.450 — —
Polyethylene (LDPE) 0.92 — 108 12 0.180 — —
PVC 1.35 90 199 48 3.300 0.32 J/cm 145
Polystyrenes 1.04 -1.06 95 84 -106 46 2.9 0.17 J/cm 3-4
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene 1.05 102 105 46 2.5 3.5 J/m —
Poly(lactic acid) (4032D) 1.24 165.7 — 42.5 2.6 — 1.2
Poly(lactic acid) (TE-2000) 1.25 — 165 — — — —
Poly(lactic acid) (2002D) 1.24 60 153 48-110 3.5 -3.8 13 J/m 2.5-100
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 1.37 75 250 47 3.1 79 J/m 50-300
Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) 1.32 143 334 92 3.6 83 J/m 2.0
Polycarbonate — 151 — 59.82 — 853.10 J/m —
Polyphenylene sulfide 1.32 — — 70 — — —
Polysulfone 1.25 — — 75 — — —
Polyamideimide 1.38 — — 95 — — —
Polyamide 1.46 — — 120 — — —
Polyetherimide — — — 105 — — 60
Polyethersulfone — — — 11.9 — 64.08 J/m 40
Polysulfones (bisphenol A) 1.24 — — 70.3 2.482 64.08 J/m —
Polysulfones (polyether) 1.37 — — 84.1 2.696 85.44 J/m —
Polysulfones (polyphenyl) 1.2 — — 71.7 2.137 640.8 J/m —
3.2. Polyethylene (PE)

Polyethylene is the most-commonly used thermoplastic polymer in the world due to
its notable properties such as high toughness, near-zero moisture absorption, chem-
ically inert, low coefficient of friction, low electrical conductivity and ease of manufac-
turing [58]. The chemical structure of PP is shown in Figure 5. The mechanical and
physical properties of PE depend on the type and extent of branching, crystal struc-
ture, and molecular weight of the polymer. PE is classified into different categories
based on its density and branching as high-density polyethylene (HDPE), high molecu-
lar weight HDPE (HMW HDPE), ultra-high molecular weight high-density polyethylene
(UHMW HDPE), linear low-density polyethylene and very lo-density polyethylene [59].
PE based composites are extensively used in packing, electrical, thermal energy stor-
age, automotive application, biomedical and space applications [60–67]. Application of
PE-based composites is limited to the products which have a service temperature less
than 150 C since the polymer has low melting point (150 C–175 C) [6].
3.3. Polyamides or nylons

Polyamide (PA) when reinforced with fibres, is widely used in load-bearing applications
and structural components. Figure 6 illustrates one of the polyamide chemical struc-
tures i.e., nylon 6,6. PA has better strength and stiffness over PP and PE and also
shows excellent temperature performance up to 200 C. PA has good thermal stability
and melts at temperatures 215 C–220 C [6]. Nylons with various chemical structures
are available, namely:
i. nylon 6, (polycaprolactam, the polymamide formed from the C6 compound,

caprolactam)
ii. nylon 6.6, (the polyamide formed by the condensation polymerization reaction
between two C6 compounds, adipic acid and hexamethylene tetramine)
Figure 4. Chemical structure of polypropylene.
Figure 5. Chemical structure of polyethylene. Source: LitchemaV

R , Lithuania.
Figure 6. Chemical structure of nylon 6.6. Source: Essentialchemicalindustry.org.

126 G. JOGUR ET AL.
iii. nylon 6.10, (the polyamide formed by the condensation polymerization reaction
between the C10 compound sebacoyl chloride and hexamethylene tetramine)
iv. nylon 6.12, (the polyamide formed by the condensation polymerization reaction
between the C12 compound dodecanedioic acid and hexamethylene tetramine)
v. nylon 11, (the polyamide formed from the C11 compound, undecanolactam)
vi. nylon 12, (the polyamide formed from the C12 compound, laurolactam) and
vii. nylon MXD6 (a polyamide, distinctive because it contains an aromatic ring in
each repeat unit within the polyamide backbone chain, that is formed by the
condensation polymerization reaction between the C6 compound, adipic acid,
and m-xylenediamine)
These polyamides are most commonly used in electrical connectors, gears, slides
and cams as well as bearings, cable ties, film packing, fluid reservoirs, fishing lines,
brush bristles, automotive oil pans, textile fabrics, carpeting/floorcoverings, sportswear,
and sports and recreational equipment [68].
3.4. Thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)

Polyurethanes are linear segmented block copolymers made by joining rigid sections
of polymer created by polymerization of diisocyanates with short-chain diols together
with highly mobile sections of polymer created by polymerization of diisocyanates
with long-chain polyols (either polyethers or polyesters). The ratio of rigid to flexible
regions can be altered during polymer synthesis to adjust the properties of the polyur-
ethane to the desired point on a spectrum from elastomeric, with long-chain polyols
(using polyethers) providing the flexible regions to stiff thermoplastic with short-chain
polyols (and using polyesters) at the other extreme. One such chemical structure of a
TPU is shown in Figure 7. TPU finds applications in paints, liquid coatings, elastomers,
insulators, elastic rubbers, foams, integral skins, etc. Thermoplastic PU is usually flex-
ible, elastic with good impact resistance, abrasion resistance, and weather resistance.
Incorporation of TPU improves the durability of many products. TPU behaves some-
what like an elastomer in showing very high strain to failure and thus high durability
and toughness [69].
3.5. Polyether sulphone (PES)

PES is an amorphous thermoplastic and has found many applications in printed cir-
cuits, safety face shields, machine guards, connectors and high-intensity light bases.
PES possess excellent heat and combustion resistance, low smoke emission, transpar-
ency, easy machinability and excellent electrical properties at elevated temperatures
Figure 7. Chemical structure of a polyester TPU (EstaneV, Lubrizol Corp., Ohio, USA).
R
[70]. They also show excellent impact resistance, dimensional stability, and lightweight
properties. They can retain their strength and stiffness properties between 100 C
and 150 C. The Tg of PES is in between 190 C and 230 C. The chemical structure of
PES is shown in Figure 8.
3.6. Polyetherimide (PEI)

PEI is a high-performance amorphous thermoplastic polymer, and the chemical struc-
ture of it is shown in Figure 9. The ether linkages present in these polymers provide
hood melt flow properties and aromatic imide units provide stiffness and therefore it
exhibits high thermal stability. PEI has high deflection temperature (200 C at 264 psi),
high tensile strength and flexural modulus (48,000 psi), and good retention of mechan-
ical properties even at elevated temperatures; it also exhibits good electrical proper-
ties, inherent flame resistance, and good limiting oxygen index (47) [71].
3.7. Polyether ether ketone (PEEK)

PEEK is a semi-crystalline high-performance polymer, with excellent thermal stability,
wear resistance, chemical resistance, and mechanical properties. Figure 10 shows the
chemical structure of PEEK. The presence of a stiff backbone in the polymer structure
offers excellent thermal stability. It has a glass transition temperature of 145 C and a
melting temperature of 335 C, and a continuous service temperature of 250 C. It can
retain considerable modulus to 300 C temperature, whereas the modulus of PES is
affected near Tg. It has high fracture toughness, easy processability, re-processability,
and easier bonding and repair operations. It can be processed by conventional meth-
ods like injection moulding, extrusion, compression moulding, and powder coating
Figure 8. Chemical structure of polyethersulphone. source: Omnexus.specialchem.com.
Figure 9. Chemical structure of polyetherimide. Source: Sigmaaldrich.com
Figure 10. Chemical structure of polyether ether ketone. Source: Achetron.com.

128 G. JOGUR ET AL.
Figure 11. Chemical structure of polyphenylene sulphide.
techniques. PEEK has found its extensive applications in aerospace, automotive, struc-
tural, high-temperature wiring, tribology, and biomedical applications [72].
3.8. Polyphenylene sulphide (PPS)

PPS is a semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer used as an attractive matrix because of
its excellent mechanical properties, high thermal stability, chemical resistance and
ease of processing [73]. PPS also exhibits excellent corrosion resistance, electrical insu-
lation, high creep resistance, and high dimensional stability. Its low ionic purities
makes it an excellent choice where high purity is needed. The chemical structure of
PPS is shown in Figure 11. They find applications in automotive, electrical/electronic,
industrial, mechanical, appliance, semiconductor industries, etc. PPS has maximum
continuous service temperature of 170 C–230 C and a melting temperature of 282 C.
No solvent dissolves PPS below 200 C [74].
4. Classification of thermoplastic composites

4.1. Synthetic-fibre based thermoplastic composites
Synthetic fibres are not cheap materials, but they are widely used in composites in
many engineering applications. Polymeric materials reinforced with glass or carbon
fibres or synthetic fibres such as the aramids provide advantages of high stiffness and
strength-to-weight ratio as compared to conventional materials such as wood, concrete,
and steel. In spite of their advantages, such synthetic-fibre-reinforced polymer compo-
sites do not find widespread applications because of their high initial costs and also due
to the fact that production of synthetic composites requires a large amount of energy.
4.2. Natural fibre based thermoplastic composites

Over the last decade, natural-fibre-reinforced plastic composites have been gaining
attention not only in research laboratories but also in various industries. Researchers
have experimented with many natural fibres for composite applications including
hemp, flax, jute, sisal and kenaf due to their specific properties, price, perceived
health-related advantages, and recyclability [75]. A classification of natural fibres used
in polymer composites as fillers or fibres (almost exclusively cellulose fibres) is illus-
trated in Figure 12.
Natural fibres do have many advantages over synthetic fibres, such as their low cost,
low density, acceptable specific strength, and biodegradability [77], however, natural
fibres are not able to gain in popularity over synthetics due to their low thermal stabil-
ity, only being able to withstand temperatures up to 230 C. When natural fibres are
Figure 12. Classification of different natural fibres used as filler or reinforcement [76].
combined with molten thermoplastic polymers which have melting temperatures

higher than thermal stability of the reinforcing natural fibres, this results in degradation
of the reinforcement and this weakness of the natural fibres limits the choice of syn-
thetic polymers that they can be used with in composite applications. When natural
fibres are combined with molten thermoplastic polymers which have melting tempera-
tures higher than thermal stability of the reinforcing natural fibres, this results in deg-
radation of the reinforcement and this weakness limits the choice of synthetic
polymers that can be used with natural fibres in composite applications. Only those
thermoplastic with a top processing temperature below 230 C can be employed as res-
ins in natural-fibre-reinforced composites. For this reason, it is polyolefins like polypro-
pylene and polyethylene which have melting points of 160 C and 145 C, respectively,
that are most commonly used as the resins in natural-fibre-reinforced composites.
Polyamides, polyesters, and polycarbonates cannot be used as the resin in this case as
the processing temperature would have to be more than 250 C [78]. In addition to low
thermal stability, the natural cellulose fibres also exhibit high moisture absorption
which results in fibre swelling which would subsequently create problems with the
dimensional stability of the composites. To overcome the problems associated with
moisture absorption, some (expensive) surface modification techniques have to be
used to remove the moisture from the fibres. One such effective technique which
reduces the moisture absorption of natural fibres is encapsulation. It is also possible to
reduce the extent of moisture absorption drastically by chemical modification of some
of the hydroxyl groups present in fibre; such surface modification increases the fibre-
matrix interface adhesion and thus helps to reduce moisture absorption in composites,
but again there will be an added cost [79,80]. Even though natural fibres have such
drawbacks, still they find many applications in different sectors, for example, the auto-
motive industry utilizes a large quantity of natural fibres and their composites in seat
backs, door panels, dashboards, headliners, package trays and trunk liners [81].
Many researchers have conducted systematic investigations to explore the potential
applications of several natural fibres in thermoplastic composites [82–85]. Fibres such
as jute, flax, and coir reinforced with thermoplastic resins have already attained the
mechanical properties achieved by glass fibre composites and are therefore finding
applications in automobile and furniture industries. However, most of the studies were
limited to characterisation only of mechanical properties such as tensile strength,
130 G. JOGUR ET AL.
extension, bending and compression. It is very important to undertake impact testing

wherever the composites are likely to be subjected to high energy impacts but
natural-fibre composites have not been characterized in such a way as to include their
impact performance hence only a limited number of articles made from natural-fibre
composites are available in comparison with the number made using glass-fibre-
reinforced composites.
There is a need for extensive research to study the impact behaviour of natural
fibre reinforced thermoplastic (NFTP) composites to multiply their potential applica-
tions [78]. Only a few researchers have tried to understand the impact phenomenon
of NFTPC composites. The impact performance of these composites is influenced by
various factors such as fibre concentration, fibre length, compatibilizers/coupling
agents, impact modifiers and the modification/post-treatment of fibres and compo-
sites. Fibre concentration has both positive and negative correlations in NFTP compo-
sites. Some researchers concluded that an increase in fibre content would increase
impact performance while others showed a decrease in performance [86].
Threepopnatkul et al. [87] reported that increasing the concentration of pineapple
fibre led to generation of more flaws in polycarbonate matrix based composite, which
in turn resulted in more void content and decreased impact performance. Similar
results were observed for higher agave-fibre loading in PP based composites [88];
water absorption increased as fibre quantity was raised and this reduced performance
against impact loading. Similar results were reported by many other authors such as
Ashori et al. [89], Yang et al. [90], Liu et al. [91], Manovich and Villar [92], and Yao
et al. [93]. Therefore, it has become necessary to optimize the fibre concentration for
different fibres. Mohanty et al. [94] optimized the jute fibre concentration (10–40%) in
the PP matrix; fibre-matrix adhesion was found to be highest at around 30% fibre con-
centration, whereas poor interfacial bonding and fibre agglomeration is occured at
above 30% fibre content and this reduced the impact performance. Similar findings
are obtained when the same author conducted impact tests on sisal/PP [95] and jute/
HDPE composites [96].
In general, an increase in fibre length leads to enhanced stress distribution and
decreased stress concentration, hence provides better impact properties as discussed
in Chapter 2.1.1 (i) and an increase in impact strength with increased fibre length is
observed in several studies [97–99].
Incorporation of a compatibilizer in NFTP composites helps to enhance the fibre-
matrix adhesion, hence reduces crack propagation at high energy levels and conse-
quently contributes to the enhanced energy absorption [86]. To prove the point, Xie
et al. [100] developed a hybrid natural composite consisting of sisal fibre impregnated
with isostatic PP. A copolymer of maleic anhydride grafted with styrene-(ethylene-co-
butylene)-styrene was added as coupling agent. The study showed improvement in
impact performance through an increase in maximum impact force, impact fracture
energy, total impact duration, crack initiation time and crack propagation time. The
enhanced performance was associated with increased compatibility between fibre and
matrix by the addition of the coupling agent/compatibilizer. A similar observation has
been reported by Lunsing et al. [101]. An increase in notched Izod impact strength was
attributed to surface grafting of resin with fibre. However, in some cases a high amount
of interface adhesion makes the laminate brittle, while in others, low adhesion causes
low fibre-pull-out energy absorption, illustrating that an optimum level of interface
bonding is required for best impact performance, which mainly relies on the fibre aspect
ratio. When fibre length is less than a critical value, it provides only a poor coupling
effect and increases take place in crack initiation and propagation; the addition of impact
modifiers such as rubber particles helps in retarding the crack initiation and propagation.
Fibre surface treatments also increase the interface adhesion and thus provide
improved impact resistance [86]. Many studies have been conducted on the effect of
surface treatments on impact performance improvement and it was concluded that
fibre surface treatment helps to enhance impact behaviour [102–111]; the effect of
various surface treatments on impact behaviour is discussed in Section 6.
4.3. Fibre reinforced hybrid thermoplastic composites

Whilst the incorporation of two or more different fibre types in a common resin matrix
yields what is called a hybrid composite, that name is not enough to distinguish these
types from those where the matrix consists of a different polymer from the reinforce-
ment. Thermoplastic hybrid composites are therefore mainly classified into fibre-hybrid
composites or matrix-hybrid composites. Hybrid composites can be further classified
as natural-fibre reinforced hybrid composites and synthetic-fibre reinforced hybrid
composites, or combinations of both natural/synthetic-fibre reinforced hybrid compo-
sites. A classification of thermoplastic composites is illustrated in Figure 13. Fibre-
hybrid composites are those, in which thermoplastic fibres remain in the fibre form
even after curing whereas matrix-hybrid composites are those in which thermoplastic
fibres dissolve into the thermosetting matrix during the curing process.
Thermoplastic fibres exhibit good plastic deformation properties and the hybrid
composites made from them thus absorb more energy [112,113]; such composites can
be formed in different ways either by arranging the fibres or tows in the form of alter-
nating laminae or in a core/shell structure or maybe by intimately mixing them. The
primary reason to explore hybrid composites is that they provide more options to
engineers to design products at reduced cost and to tailor the products for specific
applications [113]. Additionally, these materials offer an array of properties which are
Figure 13. Classification of thermoplastic composites.

132 G. JOGUR ET AL.
difficult to obtain with single fibre reinforcement. As per the available resources, mate-
rials of high and low modulus in combination are preferred for fabricating a hybrid
composite to achieve good impact performance. High modulus fibres like carbon and
boron are expensive but provide good load-bearing capability and stiffness to the
composites, whereas a low modulus fibre such as glass is less expensive and offers
more damage tolerance ability to composites. Thus the combination of these high
and low modulus fibres offer advantages in attaining a balance of strength and stiff-
ness, reduced weight and cost, improved fracture toughness, improved fatigue resist-
ance, and impact resistance [114]. For example, the impact properties of carbon fibre
composites can be enhanced by the incorporation of glass fibres; the hybrid effect
increases the capability of composite to absorb more strain energy and causes wide
diversity in failure mechanisms [115].
It is possible to predict the properties of hybrid composites before fabrication using
the rule of mixtures. Here, the final value of a particular property will be more than
the value predicted by the rule of mixtures and such synergistic strengthening is
termed the ‘hybrid effect’. A positive or negative hybrid effect in hybrid composites is
defined as a positive or negative deviation of a certain mechanical property from the
rule-of-mixtures behaviour. The effect may be either positive or negative, depending
on the relative volume fraction of two types of fibres, construction of the layers, and
loading configurations (eg trans-laminar or inter-laminar) [116].
4.3.1. Synthetic/synthetic fibre reinforced hybrid thermoplastic composites

Synthetic fibres are commonly used in structural applications due to their excellent
material properties over conventional metals. Several investigations have been done on
synthetic-fibre reinforced hybrid composites with thermosetting resins, but only a very
few articles are available on thermoplastic hybrid composites. Currently, aramid and
UHMWPE fibre-reinforced thermoplastic hybrid composites are widely utilized in ballistic
applications as they offer excellent ballistic performance due to their good mechanical
and impact properties, respectively [117]. Before this, aramid fibres were the primary
choice for the hybridization but with carbon or glass fibre in ballistic applications.
In recent years, however, researchers have been trying to replace glass and carbon
fibre with basalt fibre due its to high strength, high modulus, and improved strain to
failure. However, given that basalt fibre has an average density of 3g/cm3, this would
lead to high product weight, hence, rather than being used alone, it used as one of
the fibre components in hybridized thermoplastic composites [118]. Exploring the pos-
sibility of using basalt fibre as potential fibre in the ballistic composite applications,
Bandaru et al. [119] prepared 2D plain and 3D-A (angle interlock) fabric architectures
for making separate KevlarV and basalt fibre structures to be impregnated with PP
R
thermoplastic resin. Two hybrid panels were also prepared, one with a non-symmetric
stacking sequence (H1) and other with a symmetric stacking sequence (H2) of KevlarV/
R
basalt fibre combinations. The panels were tested against NIJ Level IIIA standard for
their damage patterns and residual velocity analysis. Results revealed that the H2
panel showed a 412.25 m/s and 416.42 m/s ballistic limit as per the MIL-STD-662E and
hydrocode simulation, respectively, with an error of 1.01%. By comparison in the H1
panel a 26.27% increase in ballistic limit was observed over that of the H2 armour
panel. In addition to this, a laying sequence of 3D-A basalt/2D-P basalt/hybrid fabric

also showed significant ballistic performance.
Bandaru et al. [118] also studied the low-velocity impact (240 J) response of 3D-angle
interlock fabric-reinforced thermoplastic composite made of KevlarV (K3D), basalt (B3D),
R
and their hybrid combination (H3D) with PP. The low-velocity impact response of these
3D composites was observed pertaining to peak force, energy absorption and damage
mode. The authors reported that the basalt Hybrid 3D composite absorbed more energy
(112.93 J) than the basalt 3D (104.26 J) and KevlarV 3D (58.16 J) composites. High energy
R
absorption was attributed to the presence of highly ductile KevlarV yarns in both fabric
R
thickness and weft directions. The KevlarV yarns were employed as binder yarns, aligned
R
at an angle to the loading direction thus did not take the initial impact; this phenom-
enon increased the contact time between bullet and target thus laminate absorbed
more energy and these 3D fabrics showed peak force results as B3D 6.19kN > H3D
5.78kN > K3D 5.34kN. Among the group of structures tested, the B3D composites
showed more peak force than the rest of the composites. K3D showed the least peak
force which might be due to early delamination and low areal density, however, in nor-
malized results K3D showed more peak force than H3D and B3D, respectively. The trend
for energy absorption also changed after normalization as H3D > K3D > B3D.
Yang et al. [120] also reported the effect of hybridization by conducting both
experimental work and simulation analysis on the low-velocity impact response of
interplay thermoplastic hybrid composites, prepared from carbon/glass woven fabric
reinforced with polymerized polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) resin. Both experiment
and simulation results confirmed that hybrid combination of carbon/glass at a ratio of
37:63 can absorb more impact energy and enhance the perforation threshold signifi-
cantly compared to virgin composites. Bouvet et al. [121] investigated the effect of
temperature on impact behaviour and damage tolerance of carbon/glass hybrid
woven fabric reinforced with thermoplastic polyether ether ketone (PEEK) with a
quasi-isotropic stacking sequence. The author concluded that hybrid combinations
offered very good impact behaviour (high permanent indentation, good impact
detectability, and reduced delamination) and a high level of damage tolerance even at
temperatures close to their glass transition point. These enhanced properties were
attributed to the ductility and toughness of the thermoplastic resins. When the tem-
perature is taken above Tg, the mechanism of plastic deformation delays matrix crack-
ing and reduces both inter- and intra-laminar crack propagation.
4.3.2. Synthetic/natural fibre reinforced hybrid thermoplastic composites

Natural-fibre reinforced thermoplastic composites show poor impact strength, lower
durability, and high moisture absorption as compared to synthetic-fibre based thermo-
plastic composites. Combining natural fibres with synthetic fibres however, has demon-
strated enhanced mechanical and thermal properties, and cost reduction [122].
Hybridization of synthetic and natural fibres offers good structural properties, and
some prospects of replacing non-renewable and expensive synthetic fibres with natural
fibres which might help to reduce environmental impact and cost of materials.
Thermoplastic resins such as polypropylene, polystyrene, polyethylene, polyvinyl
134 G. JOGUR ET AL.
chloride, polycarbonate and natural rubber have been used by many researchers to
develop hybrid composites consisting of fibres of both natural and/or synthetic ori-
gin [123].
Some of the natural/synthetic fibre-reinforced hybridized thermoplastic composites,
and their mechanical and impact performances are worthy of discussion. Glass and
sisal fibres impregnated with matrix PP-g-MA showed improvement in tensile, flexural,
and impact strength without having a significant effect on tensile and flexural moduli;
the addition of glass fibre improved the thermal and water resistance properties of
hybrid composites [124]. Short banana and glass fibres were compression moulded
with and without MA-g-PP to fabricate thermoplastic hybrid composite. This hybridiza-
tion improved the flexural and impact strength at increased fibre content up to
30 wt% (banana: glass – 15:15 ratio) and at 2 wt% MAPP [125]. The combination of
short hemp fibres and glass fibres also showed improved tensile, flexural and impact
strength over the hemp alone in fibre-reinforced PP resin [126]. Haneefa et al. [127]
studied the tensile properties of glass/banana fibres impregnated with polystyrene
matrix. The authors concluded that, since, the compatibility between glass fibre and the
resin was better than that of the banana fibre, a boost in mechanical properties such as
tensile strength and Young’s Modulus was observed with increases in the volume % of
glass. However, the increase in glass fibre content decreased the elongation at break
due to the brittle nature of fibres, which in turn diminished the impact properties.
4.3.3. Natural/Natural fibre reinforced thermoplastic hybrid composites

A major problem associated with natural fibres are the variations in their properties;
irregularities limit the scope of natural fibres usage in modern structural applications
[128]. Even so, recent research has focused on the utilization of natural fibres in engin-
eering applications since they possess good mechanical properties. Compared to sin-
gle fibre natural composites hybridized natural fibre composites have enormous
potential and have proven to be a good economical choice along with their excellent
mechanical properties [123]. Graupner et al. [129] studied the effect of hybridization
and compared performance with that of single fibre composites. They developed poly-
lactic acid (PLA)-based hybrid composites using various natural cellulose fibres such a
cotton, hemp and kenaf and regenerated cellulose fibres (lyocell) using a compression-
moulding machine. Tensile strength, elongation at break and impact strength of
hemp-lyocell/PLA hybrid composites were higher than the hemp/PLA single fibre com-
posite. Similar observations were found when Khan et al. [130] investigated the mech-
anical properties of jute/CordenkaV reinforced PP hybrid composite in the ratio of
R
25:75 by weight (CordenkaV is a regenerated cellulose fibre, Cordenka GmbH,

R
Obernburg Germany). The hybrid composite demonstrated better tensile strength

(72 MPa), modulus (3.2 GPa), heat deflection temperature (HDT) (106 C), and Charpy
impact strength (79 KJ/m2).
However, the performance of natural hybrid composites is affected by various fac-
tors such as fibre type, matrix type, fibre orientation, porosity and interfacial strength
[131]. Several studies have been conducted to understand the influence of these factors
on mechanical and impact properties. Yusoff et al. [132] prepared three types of
thermoplastic hybrid composites such as kenaf-coir/PLA, bamboo-coir/PLA and kenaf-
bamboo-coir/PLA, and investigated them through tensile and flexural tests. Results
gave a tensile strength for the kenaf-bamboo-coir/PLA hybrid composite of 187 MPa,
which was approximately 20% and 78% higher than the bamboo-coir/PLA and kenaf-
coir/PLA hybrid composites, respectively. However, all these composites showed low
Young’s modulus ranging from 6.0 to 7.5 GPa. Kenaf-bamboo-coir/PLA and bamboo-
coir/PLA hybrid composites showed the high flexural strength of 199 MPA and
206 MPA, respectively, as compared to kenaf-coir/PLA hybrid composite. It was con-
cluded that combination of high strength and high modulus bamboo and kenaf fibres
along with ductile coir fibre improved the flexural and tensile strengths over their vir-
gin single fibre composites. Thus it is important for any composites designer to know
about the types of fibre and their combination and their effect on required properties.
Asaithambi et al. [133] developed banana/sisal (30 wt%) fibre reinforced PLA
(70 wt%) hybrid composites buy an injection moulding process to study the effect of
surface treatments and their influence on mechanical properties of the composites.
Both fibres were treated with benzoyl peroxide (6 wt %) to improve interfacial adhe-
sion between fibre and matrix. The study revealed that good wettability and increased
interfacial adhesion was observed which helped to restrict the motion of the PLA
matrix. The surface treatment enhanced the tensile and flexural moduli in treated
hybrid composites compared to virgin PLA and untreated hybrid composite. Perez-
Fonseca et al. [134] studied the effect of coupling agents and their influence on mech-
anical properties for pine/agave natural-fibre reinforced HDPE hybrid composites. The
results revealed that the effect of the coupling agent maleated polyethylene (MAPE)
was higher with agave fibres, which led to them having increased tensile, flexural and
impact properties in the hybrid composite. However, the addition of pine fibre
decreased the fibre uptake. Impact, flexural and tensile strengths were increased by
41%, 22%, and 13%, respectively, in pine/agave hybrid ratio of 20/80 composites with
30 wt% of total fibre when compared to pine fibre composite alone.
4.4. Matrix hybridization

Epoxy resins are engineering materials that find a wide range of applications in the
automotive, aerospace, and constructional industries due to their excellent mechanical
properties [135]. The curing of the epoxy resins forms a high density of cross-linkages,
and this confers good thermal stability, high modulus, good creep resistance, and excel-
lent adhesion properties. However, the presence of high density of cross-links makes the
resin respond poorly in terms of its ductile and fracture toughness. Therefore, an epoxy
toughening process is employed to increase fracture toughness and fracture energy
without compromising its high modulus and good thermal stability [136].
The best way of increasing the fracture resistance of epoxy resin is to add a tough
phase, which is initially miscible in epoxy resin but later separates at some point dur-
ing curing to form a thermoplastic rich phase and an epoxy-rich phase. The tough
phase precipitates during cure and yields a multiphase morphology which can initiate
different toughening mechanisms. These mechanisms can dissipate the energy of
propagating crack and hence increase the toughness [137]. In toughening processing
the most-commonly employed additives are the rubbers [138,139], inorganic glasses
136 G. JOGUR ET AL.
[136], acrylates [140,141], and ductile engineering thermoplastics [137,142–148]. Many

of these additives toughen the epoxy resin effectively, but their addition may bring
about a drop in other desirable properties such as tensile strength and modulus.
Currently, toughening epoxy by thermoplastics is gaining importance due to there
being no significant reduction in desirable mechanical properties [143].
Since the 1980s several researchers have focused their studies on the toughening
of epoxy resins with thermoplastics. Brooker et al. [147] undertook a study to investi-
gate the effect of thermoplastic polymer in toughening the epoxy resin. A blend of
diglycidyl ether of bisphenol F, and a triglycidyl aminophenol was used as the epoxy
resin, which was cross-linked by an amine curing agent. Terminated poly (ether
sulfone) copolymer was used as thermoplastic toughener at a concentration of
15–30 wt%. Toughening of the epoxy resin by the addition of poly (ether sulfone) did
not affect the tensile strength, strain and modulus. More importantly, fracture tough-
ness increased from 0.68 MPa.m for the virgin epoxy resin to 1.11 MPa.m and fractured
energy improved from 215 to 530 J/m2 with a 35% addition of thermoplastic.
Kinloch et al. [148] studied the microstructure and properties of two epoxy resins,
triglycidyl aminophenol – called MY0510 and a difunctional epoxy which was the
diglycidyl ether of bisphenol F -PY306 cured with 4,40 diaminodiphenylsulphone – called
HT976. The thermoplastic toughener was relatively terminated polyethersulfone
copolymer, and the concentration was varied from 0 to 140 parts per hundred of epoxy
resin. The results revealed that single-phase microstructure was formed at a low added
concentration of polyethersulfone in the triglycidyl aminophenol epoxy system. This
single-phase microstructure shifted to a particulate microstructure of thermoplastic-rich
particles in the epoxy resin and then shifted to co-continuous structure and then to a
phase-inverted form.
At the initial stage, addition of thermoplastic did not have any effect on toughing
of the epoxy which was observed with a decrease in stress intensity factor, but after
that, it gradually increased with the concentration of thermoplastic copolymer.
Fracture energy was found to be constant until phase separation, but later it increased
with the concentration of polyethersulfone. In the case of the diglycidyl ether of
bisphenol F epoxy toughening effect, the microstructure shifted from single phase to
a particulate system, then to co-continuous as the quantity of copolymer was grad-
ually increased. Phase inversion was not observed in this case as it was in the single
component epoxy. Both stress intensity factor and fracture energy decreased at an
earlier stage but later increased steadily with a concentration of added thermoplastic
copolymer. Phase separation is an important factor to get a significant increase in
toughening in thermoplastic modified epoxy systems. There is an evidence that a co-
continuous or a phase-inverted microstructure imparts more toughness to multiphase
materials as compared to a particulate microstructure.
Van Velthem et al. [149] compared low Tg rubber particles to high Tg thermoplastic
particles to understand the role of Tg in the enhancement of toughness in epoxy resins.
The authors concluded that high Tg amorphous thermoplastic particles provide more
fracture toughness improvement than low Tg rubber particles. They also suggested that
to achieve high fracture resistance in highly cross-linked resins, at least two of the
following factors must be fulfilled. Firstly, the fine dispersion of toughener into the
epoxy and secondly, strong interfacial bonding between matrix-toughener and
matrix-fibre.
Raymond et al. [150] discussed different toughening mechanisms for thermoplastic
modified epoxy resins as shown in Figure 14.
Crack bridging is a mechanism where rigid thermoplastic particles act as a bridge
between two crack surfaces. These particles deform plastically and become torn in
later stages of deformation and this consumes more applied energy. This effect applies
surface tractions that effectively reduce fracture toughness K applied at the crack tip.
The fracture toughness developed by the particle bridging mechanism can be success-
fully examined through scanning electron microscopy (SEM) as the deformed particles
appear on the plane of the crack. It is difficult to predict the amount of toughness (K)
that can be achieved from crack bridging mechanism but models are available to pro-
vide predictions for rubber- and glass-filled modified epoxy resins. Ahmad et al. [151]
proposed a model for rubber-filled modified epoxy resins based on the idea that
enhancement in toughness is primarily due to the effect of stretching and tearing of
rubber particles in the crack wake.
Klc fEst
¼ ;ð1f Þ þ (1)
K0 2;ð1 f ÞK02
Where, Klc – fracture toughness of rubber particles in rubber modified epoxies

Ko – fracture toughness of unmodified epoxy
Ø – correction factor accounts for crack bowing
f – volume fraction of rubber particles
st – tearing energy of rubber particles
Enhancement in toughness can be rationalized by observing the shielding effect,
which is the reduction of K at the crack tip when these particles apply compressive trac-
tions in the crack wave. The model predicts that particle size does affect the toughness
improvement. The larger the particle size, the higher the toughness. Increase in particle
stiffness (E) and tear energy (st) also increases crack shielding, hence toughness. The
crack bridging mechanism of epoxy toughening is the more dominant mechanism
Figure 14. Illustration of different toughening mechanisms proposed for thermoplastic modified
epoxies showing: (1) crack pinning, (2) particle bridging, (3) crack path deflection, (4) particle yield-
ing, (5) particle-induced shear banding, and (6) micro raking [150].
138 G. JOGUR ET AL.
when rigid thermoplastic particles are used, because they are much more rigid and
stronger than rubber particles. This rubber-modified epoxy model can, with some
adjustments, be adapted to predict the fracture of thermoplastic-modified epoxy resins.
In the case of the crack-pinning mechanism, thermoplastic particles act as impene-
trable objects, causing the crack to bow out, which takes extra energy to tear thus
improving the fracture toughness. When this mechanism is viewed in the scanning
electron microscope, ‘tails’ near the particles on the fracture surface are observed.
Lange [152] developed the ‘Glass-filled Model’, which is used to predict the amount
of toughness improvement. The author showed that the crack front deviated in length
as it interacted with the inhomogeneous particle. Thus more energy is required to
propagate the crack.
Glc T
¼1þ (2)
Go ds Go
Where, Glc – fracture toughness of modified epoxy
Go – fracture toughness of unmodified epoxy.
T – linear energy per unit crack front (line tension)
ds – centre to centre distance between particles
The centre to centre distance between particles is calculated as follows:
2dp ð1f Þ
ds ¼ (3)
3f
dp – the diameter of particles
f – volume fraction of particles
The original model developed by Lange was refined by Evans [153] to predict the
nonlinear relation between fracture toughness and the volume fraction of particles in
the glass-filled epoxy resin. The modified model assumes that the presence of semi-
elliptical crack fronts between particles interacts to lower the stress needed to propa-
gate them. The formula provided by this model is as follows.
1=2 1=2
Kc p p
¼ tan (4)
Ko 2 þ dp =C 2 þ dp =C
Where, Kc – fracture toughness of modified epoxy

2C – surface-to-surface obstacle spacing
dp – diameter of particles
Crack-path deflection is one of the mechanisms by which a toughening effect is
achieved in thermoplastic-modified epoxy resins. The principle of this mechanism is to
cause a deviation in the main crack path by the rigid thermoplastic particles. This
increases the surface area and thus requires extra energy to propagate the crack.
Crack-path deflection can be seen through the SEM by observing fracture surfaces.
The model is represented as:
1=2
Kc Eo
¼ ð1 þ 0:87Vf Þ (5)
Ko Ec
Where, Kc – fracture toughness of modified epoxy

Ec – Young’s modulus of modified epoxy
Eo – Young’s modulus of unmodified epoxy
Vf – volume fraction of shares
The ratio of Young’s modulus for thermoplastic modified epoxies to that of modi-
fied epoxies is close to one and the volume fraction of thermoplastic modifier added
is not more than 30%. The modest improvement observed when this model is
employed in thermoplastic-modified epoxies is Kc/Ko 1.12.
Kim et al. [154] argued that the toughening mechanism of the thermoplastic modi-
fier is similar to rubber particles in inducing shear banding in the matrix. In the case
of particle-induced shear banding, the rigid thermoplastic particles yield in the epoxy
matrix and cause a reduction in their modulus as compared to rubber. Such modulus
mismatch leads to significant stress concentration, which initiates shear banding in the
matrix. Yielding of thermoplastic particles in the epoxy is the main deformation pro-
cess, which dissipates the fracture energy.
Raymond et al. [150] showed that initiation of microcracks in a highly cross-linked
epoxy resin leads to a greater toughness improvement over the rubber toughening.
This is because the microcracking mechanism is more significant than rubber-particle
bridging. Modification of the thermoplastic particles increases the number of micro-
cracks per particle, which in turn increases microcrack density, hence toughness. There
are three types of microcracking mechanisms available in two-phase materials as
shown in Figure 15. In addition to microcracking, the main crack often displays
branching. The effect of branching and microcracking is discussed by Gao and Wang
[155] for ceramic materials as shown in Figure 16. In mathematical terms, the increase
in toughness is related to angle of the main crack and the density of the microcracks.
The equation for the microcracking mechanism is as follows:
Kc 1
¼
Ko 1ðp=2Þ q=ð3pqÞ 1=2
h i1=2 (6)
½2 cosðb=2Þlog2=log½2 cos ðb=2Þ1 qa 1pq=2
q
Where, Kc – fracture toughness of material consist of microcracks

Ko – fracture toughness of material without microcracks
ß – the angle of branched crack
q – the density of microcracks
Shin et al. [144] proposed a multi-scale analysis to understand the fracture tough-
ness improvement in the thermoplastic/epoxy modified resin by the plastic yield of
Figure 15. Three types of microcracks: (a) particulate, (b) matrix, and (c) interfacial [150].
140 G. JOGUR ET AL.
Figure 16. Model proposed by Gao and Wang [155] showing the importance of increasing density
of microcracks and branching angle on fracture toughness.
Figure 17. Proposed multi-scale model to predict the toughness improvement in the thermo-
plastic/epoxy blends by plastic yielding of thermoplastic particles and particle bridging
mechanisms [144].
thermoplastic toughening agents. A schematic representation of the proposed model

is shown in Figure 17. They considered the plastic deformation at the crack tip and
particle bridging in the crack wake as the main mechanisms for the toughness
enhancement. The proposed multi-scale model gives design guidelines to improve
fracture toughness.
4.5. Structural hybridization – Hybrid yarns

According to Alagirusamy et al. [5] ‘thermoplastic prepegs having sufficient flexibility to
go through textile preforming without getting damaged significantly’ are known as
thermoplastic hybrid yarns. The significance of these hybrid yarns in fabricating compo-
sites is that they consist of both matrix polymer and reinforcing fibre before preform-
ing. The main objective of hybrid yarn formation is to achieve the homogeneous
distribution of fibre and matrix, which then reduces the mass transfer distance of
matrix during processing, and leads to fast and complete impregnation of the
reinforcement fibres. In other words, when heat is supplied to hybrid yarn, reduction in
the mass transfer distance makes the matrix polymer melt rapidly and impregnate the
surrounding reinforcement completely. Various textile manufacturing techniques are
available to produce hybrid yarns such as commingling, co-wrapping, and core spin-
ning to distribute the matrix and reinforcement uniformly without damaging the fibres.
In case of core/sheath hybrid yarns, thermoplastic polymer fibres/yarns are wrapped
around a core of reinforcing fibres, thus acting as a protecting agent in upcoming
processes. This type of hybrid yarn lacks the homogeneous distribution of fibres and
matrix, so such yarns cause poor impregnation and thus require high processing tem-
perature and pressure. The friction spinning or core spinning technique is used to spin
short thermoplastic polymers around a core of continuous reinforcing fibres to pro-
duce core/sheath hybrid yarns. However, among all other hybrid yarn formation tech-
niques, the commingling method of hybrid yarn production is more versatile and
produces soft, flexible and drapable hybrid yarn. In the commingling technique, both
resin and reinforcing fibres are in continuous multifilament form, and they are thor-
oughly mixed in a nozzle using compressed air. Because of their flexibility, com-
mingled hybrid yarns are best suitable for textile preforming processes and to
produce high-performance composites. It is possible to produce well-blended tow-
pregs by the commingling technique, however, these towpregs can de-mingle under
load in preforming processes, so commingling and co-wrapping processes are com-
bined to overcome this problem. Here, commingled yarns are further wrapped to pro-
duce a yarn with excellent matrix/reinforcement distribution and to provide good
protection to the reinforcing fibres. Production of thermoplastic hybrid yarns can be
achieved by techniques such as ring spinning, rotor spinning, wrap spinning and fric-
tion spinning. These techniques are discussed in detail by Alagirusamy et al. [5] in his
monograph. Figure 18 represents the structure of different hybrid yarns and their pro-
duction technologies.
Many researchers have conducted systematic studies to understand the effect of
hybrid yarn formation on the impact properties of thermoplastic composites. Lauke
et al. [156] studied the effect of air-textured commingled yarn on the delamination
behaviour of composites. They concluded that a hybrid yarn structure with a slight
disturbance in fibre orientation has a significant impact on inter-laminar and intra-
laminar delamination of UD thermoplastic composites. The arrangement of fibre and
matrix in the prepeg determines the matrix impregnation quality, distribution, and
orientation of fibre in the composite. Well-mixed hybrid yarns, with reinforcing fibres
not strongly oriented in the yarn axis, show the highest fracture toughness for crack
initiation and the highest crack resistance during crack propagation, especially due to
fibre bridging.
Thanomsilp et al. [157] studied the penetration impact resistance of hybrid compo-
sites based on commingled yarns fabric. Thermoplastic fibres such as PP, PA, and modi-
fied (toughened) polyethylene terephthalate (mPET) were mingled with glass
reinforcement. Composites were classified as fibre-hybrid composites and matrix-hybrid
composites based on the crystalline melting temperature of the thermoplastic fibres. GF-
PP and GF-PA were the fibre-hybrid composites whereas GF-mPET was the matrix-hybrid
142 G. JOGUR ET AL.
Figure 18. Different hybrid yarns structure and their production technology [156].
composite. The result depicted that fibre-hybrid composites absorbed significantly more
energy compared to plain glass composites due to their excellent plastic deformation
mechanism. However, matrix-hybrid composites showed similar result to plain glass
composites. Based on these results, one can understand that the total energy absorption
directly depends on fibre properties rather than matrix properties.
5. Influence of textile preforming

Before the formation of composite structures takes place, a process called textile pre-
forming is carried out. This process has many advantages such as control over fibre
placement, ease of handling, economy and it also provides homogeneous distribution
of matrix and reinforcing fibre. Thus, textile preforms obtained this way are known to
be the structural backbone of composite structures. Textile preforms may consist of
continuous filaments or discrete reinforcing fibres and converted into one, two, or
three-dimensional structures using either twisting, interlacing, inter-looping or inter-
twining mechanisms.
Textile processes are of particular importance and enable tailoring of the structural
performance of composites by careful selection fibre geometry and architecture, and
method of fibre placement and orientation. Depending on the type of textile perform-
ing employed, a wide array of pore sizes, pore size distribution, a broad range of vol-
ume fraction, fibre orientations, and structural integrity as well as a wide choice of
formed shape and net shape capability can be achieved in textile preforms. These
properties subsequently affect matrix infiltration, consolidation, and the translation
efficiency of the fibre properties into the final composite product. Textile preforms
offer many design options for the manufacturing of tough and reliable composite
structures. Textile preforms not only provide structural toughness to composites but
also facilitate the production of net or near net shape structural composite parts, since
it is possible to achieve integrated networks of structural cells in two or three dimen-
sions. 3D textile preforming is more suitable for the formation of net structural shapes,
whereas 2D preforms are formed into shapes by stitching or moulding operations.
Textile preforms must satisfy some key criteria to allow them to be considered for use
in structural composites: they must have the capability for in-plane multiaxial
reinforcement, through-thickness reinforcement, and must be able to be formed into
the required shape or a near net shape.
The fibre architecture component is classified as discrete, continuous, planar-
interlaced (2D) or fully integrated (3D) depending on structural integrity, fibre linearity
and continuity. Table 2 shows different fibre architectures used for composite
reinforcement [5].
Discrete fibre architecture shows no material continuity, and it is difficult to control
fibre orientation precisely in a whisker or fibre mat; in such a system, structural integ-
rity is achieved using inter-fibre friction, hence the translation efficiency of fibre
strength into the non-aligned fibrous assembly of the reinforcement system is quite
low. By contrast, the continuous architecture consisting of a continuous filament can
be precisely placed in a unidirectional (0 ) fashion hence this architecture has the
highest level of fibre continuity, linearity, and translation efficiency. This architecture is
best suitable for filament-wound and angle-ply tape lay-up structures. The continuous
architecture does show limitations such as intra- and inter-laminar weakness due to its
lack of in-plane and out-of-plane yarn interlacing. The third category of fibre architec-
ture is formed by planar interlacement or inter-loop systems; such architecture solves
the intra-laminar failure problem associated with continues filament architecture, but
Table 2. Represents four types of fibre architecture [158].

Level Reinforcement Textile construction Fibre length Fibre orientation Fibre entanglement
I Discrete Chopped fibre Discontinuous Uncontrolled None
II Linear Filament yarn Continuous Linear None
III Laminar Simple fabric Continuous Planar Planar
IV Integrated Advanced fabric Continuous 3-D 3-D
144 G. JOGUR ET AL.
still the matrix strength limits the interlaminar strength due to the lack of fibre
reinforcement between layers. Also, a reduction in inter-laminar strength will arise due
to less surface area available from a lower number of fibres present in the structure,
but this will need to be done, otherwise the matrix may not be able to penetrate into
the structure effectively due to the restrictions imposed by cross-over points or inter-
lacing points. These aforementioned problems can be nullified with the use of 3D pre-
forms in composites. Three-dimensional preforms are a fully integrated architecture
system, in which the continuous filaments run in both in-plane and out-of-plane direc-
tions. A most attractive feature of this system is the additional reinforcement fibre in
the through-thickness direction which forms a three-dimensional integrated network
of yarn bundles, making such composite structures virtually free from delamination.
Based on the fabric formation techniques employed, textile preforms are classified
as being achieved through fibre entanglement or yarn twisting, interlacing, interloop-
ing, intertwining or multiaxial placement. Most of the textile preforms are the result of
fibre to yarn or yarn to fabric conversion, but some preforms such as fibre felts are
converted directly from fibre to fabric [5,158]. Table 3 shows a comparison between
the four basic fabric formation techniques.
5.1. Woven preforms

Woven structures, mainly consisting of two sets of yarns, the warp and the weft
arranged at 90 to each other can be constructed so as to provide good impact resist-
ance, however, as they can in fact be made in a wide variety of weights, woven struc-
tures and width. The resultant properties such as fabric strength, thickness, stiffness,
stability, porosity, filtration ability and abrasion resistance are much affected by the
fabric areal density and fabric cover factor. Some commonly used woven structures
are plain weave, twill weaves, satin weaves, and leno weaves.
Woven textile preforms are most commonly used for the production of two-dimen-
sional laminated composites, but since these two-dimensional weaves have filaments
or yarns arranged only in the 0 and 90 directions relative to each other, they exhibit
poor impact resistance, poor delamination strength, and reduced in-plane shear prop-
erties. Fabrics with through-thickness reinforcement exhibit improved impact and
inter-laminar properties and can be achieved by using angle-interlock weaves. Fibres
are made to interlace (weave) with either adjacent fabric layers (layer-to-layer inter-
lock) or interlace with all fabric layers (through-thickness interlock). Still, these angle-
interlocked fabrics show poor in-plane shear resistance, since the in-plane fibres only
Table 3. Comparison of different fabric formation techniques [158].

Textile technology Yarn introduction direction(s) Fabric formation principle
Weaving Two (0o/90o) (warp & weft) Interlacing
Selective insertion of weft yarns at 90o to the aligned set
of warp yarns (at 0o).
Knitting One (0o or 90o) (warp or weft) Inter-looping
Drawing new loops of yarn through previously formed
rows or columns of loops
Braiding One (machine direction) Intertwining
Position displacement
Nonwoven Three or more (orthogonal) Mutual fibre placement
lie in the warp and weft directions. The multi-axial 3D weaving process introduces
bias fibre layers into the fabric thereby improving the in-plane shear properties [159].
Brandit et al. [160] showed that the use of 3D preforms in composites provides better
damage tolerance than 2D reinforced composites.
5.2. Knitted preforms

Knitted preforms are formed by the intermeshing of loops of yarns and depending on
the direction of travel of the yarn preforms are classified as weft-knitted (the rows of
interlinked loops run across the fabric) or warp knitted (columns of loops run along
the length of the fabric) [161]. Knitted structures have gained more interest in the
past few decades due to their ability to be formed into complex shapes; compared to
woven and braided structures, knitted structures have superior conformability and
drapability [162]. Researchers found that knitted preforms show poor mechanical prop-
erties when compared with woven preforms, but the exception is in the case of their
impact properties. These structures show better impact performance than woven pre-
forms, due to their multidirectional loop structure [162]. Therefore, several studies
have been carried out to improve the mechanical properties of knit structures by the
addition of inlay at first in course direction, followed by biaxial direction, and by alter-
ing knit architecture, stitch density, pre-stretching percentage on fabrics, and tow size
of bundles [163]. Compared to woven preforms, knitted preforms are relatively thick,
highly extensible, and distribute the stress effectively throughout the structures [164],
so the combination of woven and knitted structures in preforms may provide superior
impact attenuation as the former fabric type is stiff and the latter flexible.
5.3. Non-woven preforms

Nonwoven structures are formed by the direct conversion of fibres to fabric using
thermal, mechanical, chemical means or in a combination of these. The market for
non-woven preforms in composites applications is gradually increasing due to their
unique properties. Firstly, they are available in different thicknesses ranging from
25 mm upwards and weighing 10 g/cm2 to 100 g/cm2. Secondly, the density of nonwo-
ven sheets is typically less than the maximum tolerated for composite structural appli-
cations. Most importantly, they are readily available in a greater range of properties.
Non-woven composites can be classified based on the raw materials and process
technology employed to produce them. Based on the material constituents, they are
classified as multi-fibre composite nonwoven, multi-filament composite nonwoven,
combined fibre and filament composite nonwoven, particulate composite nonwoven
and hybrid composite nonwovens. Each of these composites can be prepared by a
multi-forming process, multi-bonding process or a lamination process. Based on the
fabrication technique, nonwoven composites can be classified as multi-formed com-
posite nonwoven, multi-bonded nonwoven or laminated nonwoven composites [165].
Non-woven webs are formed by random distribution of fibres and since fibres are laid
in all directions in the composite, the structure is able to dissipate the received energy
in many directions and non-woven preforms offer planar isotropic properties. Even
146 G. JOGUR ET AL.
though the impact performance of these preforms when used alone may not be good
compared to other structures, their inclusion with other structures in a composite
helps in absorbing and dissipating more impact energy.
5.4. Braided preforms

Since the 1980s, braiding has been used because of the demand for high-quality com-
posite materials and high production rates to compete with other composite materials
or composite manufacturing techniques such as filament winding, pultrusion, and
tape lay-up [166]. Braiding is a process used to produce composites preforms wherein
continuous fibres are intertwined to create the desired braided structure before or
during impregnation of the fibres. Hercules Braid, Regular Braid, and Diamond Braid
are the three most commonly used braiding architectures [166,167]. Addition of axial
fibres along the mandrel axis results in a triaxial braid, which increases bending, ten-
sile strength and stiffness of composite materials. Tubular triaxial braids resist radial
shrinkage, and flat triaxial braids resist shrinkage in width under tensile loads, hence
these preforms are suitable as reinforcements in the pultrusion process [168]. The
braiding process is capable of producing complex preforms from glass, aramid, carbon,
ceramic, and metallic fibres; changes in cross-sectional shapes, tapers, bends, and
bifurcations can be varied. Braided composites are found in structural applications in
the composite industry ranging from rocket launchers to automotive parts to aircraft
structures due to their good damage resistance and high level of conformability [168].
Braid has the tightest structure when each yarn is in contact with all neighbouring
yarns, however, due to bulky fibre structure and the presence of crimp it is difficult to
produce the tightest structure.
The 3D braiding technique is used to produce multidirectional near-net shaped pre-
forms for high-damage-resistance structural composites [169] and was the first textile
process used to manufacture 3D fibre preforms for composites. 3D braided fabric pre-
forms are formed by intertwining or orthogonal interlacement of yarns to create an
integrated structure through position displacement. These structures provide through-
thickness reinforcement and are characterized by high fibre content and less than 1%
voids by interlocking continuous layers of braid; they exhibit higher delamination
resistance and better impact attenuation and lower notch sensitivity than 2D lami-
nates due to the presence of through-thickness reinforcement [170].
6. Effect of interfacial tension and interphase adhesion of composites on

impact properties
A critical factor which determines the effectiveness of reinforcement and its effect on
the final mechanical properties of the composites is the adhesion between fibre and
matrix. The fibre-matrix bonding is restricted to a region or ‘third phase’ commonly
known as the interphase, where stress transfer happens. The interphase is defined as
the three-dimensional region which lies between fibre and matrix. Interphase regions
are known as the transition region or third phase, and possess their own properties
which do not correspond to fibre or matrix properties. The extent of molecular or local
segment diffusion across the interface determines the interfacial zone that significantly
affects the strength of an adhesive bond. Poor distribution gives a sharp interface and
weak adhesion between fibre and matrix. Strong polar interactions or strong chemical
bonds must exist across the interface to achieve high adhesive bonding [171]. The
interface consists of either mechanical interlocking or chemical bonding between the
phases; composites can therefore have more than one interface when they are made
from coated fibres [172].
Compared to their synthetic counterparts, natural fibre thermoplastic composites
show poor adhesion between fibre and matrix, thus creating a poor fibre-matrix inter-
face. This arises because of high moisture absorption by natural fibres and differences
between the chemical structures of fibre and matrix. In addition to the hydrophilic
nature of fibre bringing about moisture absorption which results in the poor interface,
the presence of pectin and waxy substances conceal the reactive functional groups of
fibre and may also prevent interlocking with the matrix. The surface of these natural
fibres must therefore be modified and there are various techniques available to
improve the compatibility between fibre and matrix [173].
6.1. Physical methods

The physical methods used for surface modification of fibres are stretching, calendar-
ing, hybrid yarn production and thermal treatment. Physical methods change the
structural and surface properties of the fibre but do not extensively change its chem-
ical composition and interfacial interaction using these methods is mainly improved
by mechanical interlocking between fibre and matrix [174]. Corona and plasma treat-
ments are the most-commonly used physical methods to modify the surface of fibres
and help to enhance the interfacial bonding between fibre and matrix and such an
improvement in interfacial bonding increases the impact performances of composites.
6.1.1. Corona treatment

Corona discharge treatment is used to improve the compatibility between hydrophilic
fibres and a hydrophobic matrix by surface oxidation activation. This process changes
the surface energy of the cellulose fibres [174]. Belgacem et al. [175] studied the effect
of various corona treatments (CT) on the mechanical properties of cellulose/polypro-
pylene thermoplastic composites. The study revealed that CT significantly improved
the mechanical properties. The amount of improvement in properties depended on
the specific fibre/PP combination and the total treatment energy used. Composites
consisting of treated cellulose, and untreated PP showed higher yield stress than the
treated cellulose and treated PP combination. The yield stress increased by 24% in
treated cellulose/untreated PP and only a 6% incremental improvement was obtained
when CT was given to both. This improvement was due to the smaller specific area of
PP with relatively large size particles. Ragoubi et al. [176] also studied the effect of
fibre surface modification on hemp-PP composites by corona treatment (in common
with some others, they call untreated fibres ‘non-treated fibres’, and the untreated
fibres therefore become the NTF component, whilst similarly, the untreated polypro-
pylene becomes NTP). They developed different combinations of composites including
148 G. JOGUR ET AL.
NTP/NTF (both untreated fibre and untreated PP), NTP/TF (only the fibre treated), and
TPP/NTF (only the PP treated). Their results showed a significant increase in mechan-
ical properties such as Young’s modulus, stiffness, and elastic energy.
The etching effect on the fibre surface at different treatment time is shown in
Figure 19 [176]. In fibre treated (NTP/TF) composites, the PP covered the fibre surface
to a large extent. Most of the fibres were closely attached to the PP matrix even after
the pullout test, hence they were considered to have exhibited excellent resistance to
fibre pull out. The modification of the cellulosic reinforcement (hemp) rather than the
PP imparts more enhancement in the composite properties and the improvement in
mechanical anchorage, interfacial adhesion between fibre and matrix is mainly
achieved by the etching effect of corona treatment, which generated more surface
area contact for the PP matrix, which in turn helped penetration of PP into the bulk
fibres. The composite therefore failed by local shear yielding of the matrix around the
fibre ather than tensile failure or debonding of the fibres. The authors also reported
the effect of CT on the surface failure of fibres, which is depicted in Figure 20.
6.1.2. Plasma treatment

Fibre surface modification by plasma treatment for both the natural and synthetic
based textile component is gaining interest in industrial applications. Polymers show
poor adhesion with the matrix due to their low surface energy and plasma treatment
improves adhesion by changing polymer properties such as wettability and surface
energy. Different types of plasma gases are available and offer a wide range of wett-
ability, (moderate hydrophilicity to significant hydrophobicity). Among these gases,
cold gaseous plasma is more often and more widely used to modify fibre surfaces.
Plasma can perform four functions based on the experimental conditions [177]:
i. Surface cleaning – which promotes adhesion and action of a coupling agent

ii. Etching or ablation – which creates a rough surface and promotes physical
adhesion
iii. Cross-linking or branching – which strengthens the surface layer
iv. Functionalization – formation of new functional groups at the surface to a depth
of 10 nm.
Figure 19. SEM images of the hemp fibre surface showing the effect of corona treatments: (a) raw
hemp, (b) treated for 15 min, (c) 30 min, (d) 40 min [176].
Figure 20. SEM images of the fracture surfaces of corona-treated composites: (A) PP/NTF, (B) TPP/
NTF, (C) PP/TF [176].
Two types of plasma treatments are available for fibre-surface modification, namely
vacuum and atmospheric plasma treatments. The vacuum process requires the compo-
nents to be treated under low vacuum pressure in a chamber and the limiting factor
of this method is its chamber size and the fact that it is a batch process. The bleed
gas is introduced, ionized, and then the gas ions attack the fibre surface and change
the chemical and topological properties near the fibre surface. The overall chemical
structure is little affected, but the method introduces free radicals and cross-links on
the fibre surface by removing atoms or by breaking bonds. In atmospheric plasma
treatments, the components are treated in situ not in a chamber hence this becomes
a highly attractive technique commercially. The different mechanisms of plasma sur-
face modification techniques have been discussed [178]. Jeong et al. [179] developed
an atmospheric plasma jet to achieve etching effect on materials at atmospheric pres-
sure and temperature between 100 C and 275 C.
150 G. JOGUR ET AL.
6.2. Chemical methods

The hydrophilic nature of natural fibres and the hydrophobic nature of the matrix
brings about inherent incompatibility between fibre and matrix interface. Chemical
treatment is therefore aimed at reducing the hydrophilic nature of fibres and thereby
enhancing their compatibility with the matrix [180,181]. There are a variety of different
chemical treatments available to enhance the interfacial strength between fibre and
matrix such as alkaline treatment, silane treatment, acetylation treatment, benzoylation
treatment, peroxide treatment, the use of maleated coupling agents, sodium chlorite
treatment, acrylation and acrylonitrile grafting, isocyanate treatment, stearic acid treat-
ment, permanganate treatment, triazine treatment, and fatty acid derivative treatment
[173]. Among these, the alkaline treatment method significantly improves the mechan-
ical properties of natural cellulose fibres by modifying their crystalline structure and by
removing potentially weakening elements like lignin and hemicellulose from fibre struc-
ture. Figure 21 represents the typical alkali-treated and untreated cellulose fibre. The
use of water repellent agents reduces the moisture absorption as well as swelling of
natural fibres and thus enhances interface strength. Silane coupling agents improve the
fibre/matrix interfacial strength by the formation of strong chemical bonding [181].
6.3. Biological treatment

In addition to physical and chemical methods, biological methods may also be applied
with the aim of modifying the natural-cellulose fibre surface and studies have revealed
that such biological treatment is environmental-friendly and efficient [182,183]. Fungal
treatment is used to modify the fibre surface by removing non-cellulosic elements
(wax) from the fibre surface through the action of specific enzymes, and white rot fungi
produce extracellular oxidases, enzymes that react with lignin constituents (lignin per-
oxide) and they therefore help to remove lignin from the fibre and reduce the hydro-
phobic tendency of the fibre by increasing hemicellulose dissolution. The method also
creates hyphane that produces fine holes on the fibre surface to make it rough and to
cause better interlocking of fibre and matrix. Pommet et al. [184] proposed a novel bac-
terial technique for fibre surface modification; their study revealed that deposition of
5–6% fermented bacterial cellulose nano-fibrils as a substrate on the surface of sisal
and hemp, resulted in significant enhancement in interfacial adhesion with polymeric
Figure 21. Typical structure of (i) untreated and (ii) alkali-treated cellulose fibre [173].
Figure 22. SEM image showing the effect of treatment with Ophiostoma ulmi: (a) untreated hemp
fibre bundle and (b) treated fibre bundle [185].
matrices such as PLA and cellulose acetate butyrate. Deepaksh et al. [185] improved
mechanical properties in composites by successfully modifying the hemp fibre surface
using a fungus called Ophiostoma ulmi (the fungus which causes Dutch Elm Disease).
The untreated and treated hemp fibres are presented in Figure 22.
Bledzki et al. [186] examined the impact properties of enzyme-modified abaca fibre
(the natural cellulose leaf fibre, manila hemp) impregnated with PP. They developed a
variety of different composite materials based on abaca such as abaca/maleated poly-
propylene (abaca/Ma-PP), abaca/natural elephant dung and abaca/enzyme (Fungmix).
The enzyme-treated fibre composite exhibited a 10–25% increased impact strength
over other composites which was attributed to the improved interfacial adhesion
brought about by the surface treatment. Mamun et al. [187] studied the mechanical
properties of enzyme-treated and untreated composites made from microfibre-
reinforced PLA and PP composites. The study revealed that removal of impurities and
some of the amorphous portion from fibre surface by the enzyme treatment without
damaging the fibre, facilitated improved interfacial adhesion. Fibres subjected to such
enzyme treatment also exhibited incremental improvements in tensile modulus, failure
strain, flexural strength, flexural modulus, and impact properties in the PP and PLA
composites and the properties of these enzyme modified fibre composites can be
comparable to Ma-PP modified PP based composites.
7. Effects of environmental conditions on thermoplastic composites

The superior properties like strength and stiffness in composite materials are habitually
compromised in their real-time service applications due to uncertainty about the mate-
rial’s behaviour under varying environmental conditions, for example prolonged expos-
ure to water, water vapour, corrosive environments, and temperature changes along
with various types of physical and chemical attack. The effect of moisture on composite
materials has been studied for decades. Water works like a plasticizer when absorbed
by the matrix by softening the material and reducing some of its mechanical proper-
ties. Moisture may wick along the fibre-matrix interface and disturb their adhesion, and
152 G. JOGUR ET AL.
the absorption of moisture also causes the fibre to swell thereby causing swelling
stresses at the interfacial region which further leads to matrix micro-cracking and de-
bonding. In addition to this, moisture in composites reduces matrix-dominated proper-
ties, such as transverse strength, fracture toughness, and impact resistance [188,189].
Void content in the composites eases moisture movement until a saturation point
is reached. Micro-graphical analysis of the composite structures following exposure to
the moisture confirms that the environmental effects are related to resin leach-out
and fibre slippage. Balatinecz et al. [190] tested the mechanical properties of wood-
fibre based thermo-plastic composites after immersing them in boiling water for
48 hours. The composites were also exposed to temperatures of 40 C, 20 C, 0 C,
20 C, 40 C and 60 C for two hours and then tested at the same temperatures for
tensile and flexural properties. The results showed that immersion in boiling water
resulted in water absorption of between 3 and 5%, with a decrease in tensile and flex-
ural properties, and increase in impact strength. While the composites exposed to vari-
ous other temperatures showed decreased strength and modulus with the increasing
temperatures. Ishak et al. [191] carried out similar research on hygro-thermal ageing
behaviour by immersing thermoplastic-based composite specimens in distilled water
at 30 C and 90 C. The extent of deterioration in tensile properties incurred by hygro-
thermal aging was reported. The original tensile properties of the composites were
not recovered upon re-drying of the specimens.
Panthapulakkal et al. [192] reported surface discoloration of composites on expos-
ure to ultraviolet light for 745 hours with no significant changes in their flexural
strength and stiffness. Kuciel et al. [193] reported that accelerated ageing in the pres-
ence of moisture leads to dimensional changes with immediate effects on mechanical
properties. The deterioration in properties was mainly due to internal stress developed
inside the composite due to swelling and degradation in the interfacial adhesion
between the filler and the matrix.
Due to lack of a reliable experimental database, the superior properties of compos-
ite materials are often penalized by the application of unusually larger margins of per-
formances in the actual design. To upgrade the material properties, it is very
important to identify and list the factors that degrade them so that corrective meas-
ures can be taken to improve the potential range of application of such materials.
Following are some of the apparent causes of degradation of composite materials
as revealed under various environmental conditions:
a. Strength degradation of the reinforcing fibres by a stress-corrosion mechanism.

b. Degradation of the fibre-matrix interface resulting in loss of adhesion and inter-
facial bond strength.
c. The permeability of the constituent materials in the composites to corrosive
agents, such as water vapour, which affects both (a) and (b) above.
d. Normal viscoelastic dependence of matrix modulus and strength on time and
temperature.
e. Accelerated degradation from the combined action of temperature and moisture.
Due to these environmental factors ultimately leading to the structural instability

and failure of the material, the utilization of the composites under such conditions is
inhibited or does not happen, indicating that in the future, composites of much-
improved reliability need to be built to gain the confidence of the designer and user
so that they can take their rightful place as high-performance materials.
8. Impact analysis
Various reports have been made on the analysis of impact testing of composite mate-
rials to predict delamination, matrix failure, fibre failure and inter-fibre damage.
Development of impact analysis started from being an analytical method to the finite
element method, and to the numerical model used to predict type and shape of the
damage. In early days, several well-defined failure models were developed for isotropic
materials such as metallic bodies, but for newer non-isotropic materials like compo-
sites, these failure theories are not valid, and although initially, these failure theories
were incorporated with a numerical model for the damage prediction of composite
material during an impact test, the results remained unsatisfactory. Hence, some new
and modified failure theories have been introduced for materials other than the iso-
tropic, which are more closely suited to explaining the type of damage that occurs
during actual experiments.
8.1. Analytical method

8.1.1. Spring-mass model
In the spring-mass model system, as shown in Figure 23, a point mass (m) and spring
stiffness (k) represent a very basic impact system in which vibration at higher mode
and non-linearity is neglected, and the delamination area is calculated by Jackson and
Poe’s method. Although this method is not very effective as it does not consider sev-
eral parameters it forms a basis for developing further modified analytical models
more-suited to the prediction of the impact properties of composite materials [194].
Christoforou et al. [195] studied the effect of composite flexibility on impact proper-
ties. To study the local energy loss during impact test, the coefficient of restitution as
an input is used in impact models such as the spring dashpot and momentum bal-
ance methods. The impact response of flexible bodies is different from that of the
compact body. Basically, there are three important phenomena occur during impact
testing such as:
i. local contact behaviour,

ii. wave propagation and
iii. initial interaction of impactor and the target dynamics.
Figure 23. Spring-mass model for impact system [194].

154 G. JOGUR ET AL.
The quasi-static impact model which is a single-degree-of-freedom lumped model

has been used to predict the impact response.
There are two types of damages; one is local damage, and another one is global
damage. Local impact damage causes a permanent indentation in the contact zone
while global damage results in invisible delamination. The relationship between max-
imum impact force and two non-dimensional impact parameters can be studied and
used to characterize the dynamic response to local, transition and global damages
[196]. Singh et al. [197] developed an analytical model for low-velocity impact based
on the spring-mass system. It considered that there are two rigid masses: one is the
impactor, and another one is the laminate connected by a spring, and a spring-mass
system is used to represent the bending, shear, and contact and membrane stiffness
of the composite. They found that stiffness of the spring changes with the damage
propagation and they found differences in force response and maximum deflection of
the target for low- and high-mass impactors at the same impact energy level. Initially,
a damage parameter was not considered in the force calculation which leads to devi-
ation in results but then it was taken into consideration in force calculation as the
force and damage are dependent.
A spring-mass model developed for damaged and undamaged configurations is
shown in Figure 24. It was found that the damaged model was close to experimental
results as it considered the damage parameter which is more realistic.
Figure 24. Spring-mass model for undamaged and damaged configuration [197].
The equations for the motion of the system [197] are:

ml ð€x l Þ þ kc ðxl xp Þðn Þ ¼ 0
e
(7)
mP ð€x P Þ þ kbs xp þ km xp3 kc ðxl xp Þðn ¼ 0
eÞ
(8)
Where subscript [.] represents derivative of quantity with respect to time, kbs repre-
sents combined stiffness due to bending and shear deformation and kc, kb and km rep-
resent contact stiffness, bending stiffness and membrane stiffness, respectively. xl and
xp denote displacement of plate and impactor, respectively. While ml and mp are rep-
resenting mass of impactor and plate, respectively. The force due to membrane
stretching varies nonlinearly with plate deflection. The exponent varies from ne ¼ 3/2
for elastic contact to ne ¼ 1 for plastic contact.
Initial boundary condition for the Figure 25 is shown in Equation (9–12)
x l ðt ¼ 0 Þ ¼ 0 (9)
x_ l ðt ¼ 0Þ ¼ V0 (10)
xp ðt ¼ 0Þ ¼ 0 (11)
x_ p ðt ¼ 0Þ ¼ 0 (12)
Where V0 is initial non-zero velocity of the impactor.
The Equation (13) for nonlinear membrane stiffness [197] is
13 1 1
1 1 3 1 3
¼ D þ UD (13)
km km km
K is the stiffness of the spring used in the damaged and undamaged model.
Olsson [198] analytically predicted the large impact mass damage initiation and
growth during quasi-static response, where it is found that the critical load for delamin-
ation growth is almost insensitive to geometry and boundary conditions. Delamination
initiates at midplane in the case of thin plate according to classical plate theory while
in the case of thick plate, delamination initiates from the surface near to load contacts.
It is observed that distribution of strain energy release through thickness is better pre-
dicted by strain energy distribution criteria during multiple delaminations. The equiva-
lent plate mass is negligible when the impactor mass is double or more in weight.
Critical energy for damage initiation is underestimated when only bending is consid-
ered, because in thick-plate indentation, the shear contribution is dominant while in
the case of thin-plate indentation, the bending contribution is dominant; it is also
found that the effect of fibre damage is less in thick laminates than in thin laminates.
8.1.2. Beam plate model

The beam plate model is used to study the dynamic behaviour of orthotropic plates. The
fundamental principle of this model is based on the concept developed in 1981 by A.L.
Dobyns. In this model, a supported boundary condition is applied, and bending deform-
ation is considered. During the impact testing of composites, contact force and response
of orthotropic plate structures is a matter of concern. Contact loading poses a mixed
value problem [199]. Analytical models for a large-mass impactor on delamination
growth have been developed earlier, but much less work has been done for small-mass
156 G. JOGUR ET AL.
Figure 25. Failure modes of a laminate subjected to low-velocity impact [197].
impactors; later these have been developed by Olsson. For a small-mass impactor, a
plate is more prone to local response controlled by wave propagation during the impact
test while a quasi-static response occurs with a large mass impactor [200]. Impact testing
with large- and small-mass impactors has been carried out to show the difference in
behaviour of the target plate. In the experiment, the load vs time, and deflection vs time
graphs were studied. In case of the large-mass impactor, symmetrical curve is observed
and unsymmetrical curve in case of small-mass impactor as shown in Figure 26.
The impact response model has been developed [200] and is shown in Equations
(14 and 15).
ðt
wi ¼ V0 F ðCÞðt CÞdC=M (14)
0
Figure 26. Comparison between (a) large mass and (b) small mass impact response [200].
Figure 27. Load-deflection curve [200].
ðt h ð0
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffii
tt
F ðC Þ F ðC Þ
wp ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi arc tan ðt CÞSn = mDn dC þ dC (15)
4p mDn 2pðt CÞSn
0 0
Where plate of thickness (h) and density (q) is impacted by an elastic concentrated
mass (M) with initial velocity (V0), contact force (F), displacements (Wi and Wp are func-
tion of time u) of the impactor and plate with time correction (t0). Here m ¼ qh is the
plate mass per unit area (m). Dn and Sn are the effective bending and shear stiffness
of an orthotropic plate with ‘n’ number of delaminations. The force vs deflection curve
is shown in Figure 27 for an impact test where delaminated and undelaminated zones
can be identified and the force vs time curve is shown in Figure 28.
Strain energy Equations (16 and 17) [200] are
Gc A ¼ DWDUDT ¼ 2DUDUDT ¼ DUð1 DT=DUÞ (16)
1 1
DU ¼ DW ¼ Fav Dw ¼ ðFdn þ F0 Þðwdn w0 Þ (17)
2 2
where Gc is the critical strain energy release rate and DW, DU, and DT are the changes
in external work, elastic energy and kinetic energy, respectively due to the generation
of the crack surface of area A and Fav is an average load while h represents thickness
of plate.
158 G. JOGUR ET AL.
Figure 28. Analytically predicted response with (solid) and without (dotted) delamination [200].
Najafi et al. [201] investigated the behaviour of low-velocity impact testing of func-
tionally graded material. Plate theory such as classical plate theory (CPT) and other
similar theories are only valid for the thin plates. These theories do not consider the
shear effect, therefore they are not applicable to thick plate where shear phenomena
dominate. As the CPT is not valid for thick plate, to overcome this deficiency many
shear deformation plate theories have been developed that also account for transverse
shear deformation effects. First order shear deformation theory (FSDT) was developed
which is suitable for both thin and thick plates with the application of a shear correc-
tion factor. For higher accuracy and to avoid the use of a shear correction factor sev-
eral higher degree theories have been proposed for example Reddy’s higher shear
deformation theory, the sinusoidal higher deformation theory and the hyperbolic shear
deformation theory that hold good for a 3D elasticity solution.
8.2. Finite element method

8.2.1. Macro model
This model is very basic for impact simulation through the finite element method
(FEM). Here, the entire laminate is taken into consideration using shell element. Shell
stiffness is calculated through a laminate theory.
Composite damage tolerance analysis code (Codac) is a finite-element based tool
used to predict the impact response, damage, and residual strength of a composite as
a whole. With the help of this tool, it is easy to see ply-by-ply damage progression
and analyse delamination growth. The finite-element approach used here is based on
Hertzian contact law and Mindlin’s plate theory considering transverse shear stress
[202]. Bogenfeld et al. [203] studied a progressive-damage model based on the tensor-
ial approach. A fourth-order material tensor to the fracture plane coordinate is incor-
porated in finite-element simulation for precise results. The schematic diagram for the
crack propagation is shown in Figure 29. Post-damage behaviour other than damage
initiation is important as it is crucial in the design process and is known as damage
evolution or progressive damage. The conventional model is only effective in the
Figure 29. Fracture schematics of continuum damage mechanics [203].
principal direction of material coordinates while this model is valid for the fracture
plane in all directions.
Baaran et al. [204] developed an efficient model based on the finite-element
method for the prediction of damage resistance and damage tolerance and also dis-
cussed the method to predict compression after impact strength. Macroscopic stress-
based failure criteria are used for damage analysis. It is important to distinguish
between fibre, matrix and delamination failure. Each failure mechanism has its own
effect on structural stiffness. There is a well-defined failure model for different failures
to give the right prediction. Karger et al. [205] conducted a low-velocity impact test
on a sandwich composite panel with the finite element method-based tool CODAC
and they used a progressive-damage mechanics approach. In the study they observed
the link between different damage stages and force-time history. Invisible core crush-
ing is the first stage of damage during impact which reduces the slope of force-time
curve. Johnson et al. [206] developed a continuum mechanics model for impact test-
ing considering in-ply failure and delamination failure. They used new technology to
model the laminate as a stack of shell elements tied by contact interface conditions.
Damage parameters were used in the damage equation to relate it to the strain
energy release in the ply. They proposed a ply model used in a multi-layered Mindlin-
Reissner shell element, which can be used to model the complete laminate and indi-
vidual layers, which further improves the delamination model.
A composite is vulnerable to delamination and there is no effect of impactor mass
on strain rate during low-velocity impact test, therefore, this can be neglected in the
simulation. Finite shell/solid element has been used in combination with physical
based or semi-empirical criteria for damage predictions [207].
8.2.2. Meso model

This model comes under mesoscale. Here, a linear, reduced-integrated shell element
represents each layer of the laminates and cohesive volume elements with eight
nodes are used to connect the layers. Fracture is one of the main failure phenomena
during the impact testing of engineering materials. For modelling of the brittle frac-
ture, the rate-independent variational principle of diffuse fracture approach is required
[208]. The delamination model has been derived from existing maximum load surface
theory, which limits the adhesive forces in the crack zone.
For better result prediction, it is required to consider both fibre and matrix failure
in constitutive relation. There are various methods by which the effect of size, shape
and distribution of cracks in the laminate can be predicted accurately. If few macro-
scopic cracks are present, then individual cracks may be considered as the boundary
of the parts and this comes under fracture mechanics. When numerous microcracks
are present in the composite, it is not possible to consider them individually so
160 G. JOGUR ET AL.
smeared representation has to be used, and this comes under continuum mechanics
[209]. Bouvet et al. [210] developed a model for the simulation of compression after
impact, and it is used as an initial condition to predict the residual strength in
compression because of damage due to impact. Mesh details of the improved intra-
laminar model are shown in Figure 30 which also represents solid C3D8R elements
in green, cohesive COH3D8 in red, rigid contact elements S4R in orange, and rigid
analytical surfaces in purple.
Borg et al. [212] developed an algorithm to predict the direction and location of
the delamination front concerning the fibre above and below the interface. Here,
the delamination model consists of two parts: one is adhesive penalty contact, and
another one is the cohesive zone method.
For any design, it is important to know that under what conditions any material
develops damage and eventually fails. Various models have been clubbed together
with some effect of inhomogeneity between reinforced element and matrix for the
achievement of more real response on account of higher computational efforts [213].
To model the debonding behaviour between metal to composite or composite to com-
posite interface, cohesive tie-break is used which is inbuilt in LS Dyna. Here, a suitable
Figure 30. FE model and mesh details of ‘improved intra-laminar’ model. Solid C3D8R elements in
green, cohesive COH3D8 in red, rigid contact elements S4R in orange, rigid analytical surfaces in
purple. Dimensions are in mm [211].
model has been developed to predict the dynamic response of GLARE Panel [214]. Liu
et al. [215] explored the effect of different failure criteria like Puck criteria, Hashin crite-
ria and Chang-Chang criteria on dynamic failure properties of composites. They studied
inter-laminar damage and intra-laminar delamination under impact forces. The use of
finite element analysis (FEA) for the prediction of failure has some numerical issues
regarding non-linearity in geometry and materials. Consequently, these factors play a
vital role in damage constitutive modelling, failure criteria, damage evolution law, the
frictional contact algorithm and time-stepping algorithm in impact analysis. Energy dis-
sipated is predicted by different criteria is shown in Figure 31.
Shi et al. [216] developed a model to simulate inter and intra-laminar cracks by
considering non-linear shear behaviour. They employed a user-defined material
sub-routine (VUMAT) for implementing damage modelling. Allix et al. [217] proposed
an inter-laminar interface model for a laminate, which consists of different stacking
sequences of homogeneous layers. It is possible to predict delamination using a few
intrinsic characteristics of the interface. However, it is difficult, therefore there should be
a clear distinction between fracture mechanics and damage mechanics. By considering
all the degradation factors, damage mechanics of a composite material can be taken
into account. A ‘sliding effect’ is considered in this model. Damage mechanics is a tool
used for the prediction of delamination initiation and propagation, whereas fracture
mechanics is used to understand the growth of delamination in an already-affected
area. Kaddour et al. [218] compared the experimental and theoretical results of a
polymer composite subjected to 3D states of stress using several 3D failure criteria. A
‘Full 3D’ impact model is developed for the thick composite laminate (as shown
in Figure 32) for a wide range of impact velocities, considering damage initiation to
penetration. Two phases have been categorized during high-velocity impact such as
the short-time phase (shock compression) and the long-time phase (penetration) [219].
Inter-laminar damage based on the virtual crack closure technique (VCCT) and
cohesive zone model (CZM) are compared for numerical simulation. Limitations of
Figure 31. Dissipated energy after impact at about t ¼ 3.5 ms using Puck, Hashin, and
Chang–Chang failure criteria for Case-A specimens for: Layup-A laminate and (b) Layup-B lamin-
ate [215].
162 G. JOGUR ET AL.
Figure 32. 3D finite element model of ballistic impact on the thick-section composite [219].
Figure 33. Parameters of the cohesive element formulation in an explicit FE code [221].
VCCT compared to CZM were highlighted and pointed towards the need for a pre-
existing crack and the use of an adaptive remeshing tool [220]. Low-velocity impact
occurs at some frequency and the affected area around the damage zone is difficult
to detect. Therefore, the continuum damage model is applied for the simulation of
intra-ply fracture with the implementation of element-erosion criteria. Fracture occurs
in three mode as shown in Figure 33 [221].
Low-velocity impact causes extended damage inside the composite and such dam-
ages are difficult to detect [222]. Interface debonding and damage progression are mod-
elled using an extended modelling technique and cohesive zone technique, where
tensile strength used in the model is considering the function of voids and interface
debonding. There is very little experimental work and few numerical models available for
determining residual strength or compression after impact (CAI) tests, but several numer-
ical algorithms are available for the modelling of principal damage, material modelling
for plastic interlayers, and numerical techniques for adhesion modeling [222–225].
8.2.3. Micro model

The micro model is an advanced form of stacked solid approach where both inter-lam-
inar and intra-laminar damages are considered. A micromechanics model has been
Figure 34. Three different fibre packing arrangements for fibre composites [226].
developed to predict triaxial failure including those of thickness direction, and is based
on micromechanical unit cell models as shown in Figure 34. The magnitude of com-
posite applications is increasing in different sectors including civil construction and
the aerospace industry and during such applications composites are subjected to high
load and hence, composites with high thickness are required to withstand such condi-
tions. Owing to this requirement, loading the thickness direction is considered in the
development of models [225].
During loading two types of stresses are generated in the composite plate namely
micro and macro stresses. Micro stress occurs at the fibre level while macro stress
accounts for the average effect of stress of the whole of the composite material. The
relation between micro and macro stresses is shown in Equations (18–20). The relation
between micro and macro stress [225] is:
rf ¼ Mf r þ Af DT (18)
rm ¼ Mm r þ Am DT (19)

t ¼ Mi r þ Ai DT (20)
where M and A are stress amplification factors (SAF).
Krause studied the micro-mechanical approach for damage modelling under fatigue
load, and the author also modified the viscoelastic material model using the micro-
mechanical approach. Matrix cracking, delamination and fibre failure is depicted in
Figure 35 with mesh shape in the ply [211,227].
Ivancevic et al. [228] and Lopes et al. [229] presented a multi-scale methodology to
analyse the impact properties of composites and a multi-mode continuum damage
mechanics theory was adopted. In the multi-scale damage modelling approach, the
micromechanical model accounts for the process occurring inside the unit cell of the
composite material explicitly.
8.3. Failure model

8.3.1. Intra-laminar damage modelling
In intra-laminar damage modelling, the damage is considered in the same lamina.
Here fibres take the tensile load and compression load in both longitudinal and trans-
verse directions.
Failure criteria are an important aspect in determining the strength and failure point
of a structure under the application of different forces. Non-uniform stress induces
164 G. JOGUR ET AL.
Figure 35. Modelling of impact damage and element types and (b) mesh shape in each oriented
ply [227].
failure at a point from where damage propagation initiates inside the composite struc-
ture. The stiffness of a structure reduces as matrix and fibre breakage occur [230].
The Ramberg–Osgood [230] stress Equation (21) is:
E0 e
r ¼
n 1þn1
(21)
E0 e
1þ r0
where E0 is the initial modulus (shown in Figure 36), r0 is the asymptotic stress level,
and ‘n’ is a shape parameter for the stress versus strain curve.
Equation (22) shows instantaneous or tangent lamina stiffness expressed as a continu-
ous function of strain and Figure 36 the Ramberg–Osgood parameter definitions [230]:
E0 e
r ¼
n 1þn1
(22)
E0 e
1þ r0
Failure of laminates under non-homogeneous loading is analysed by the layer-by-layer

failure model. Some non-linear factors are taken into consideration due to micro-damage,
Figure 36. Ramberg–Osgood parameters definitions [230].
matrix cracking and changes in fibre angle with increasing strains [231]. The earlier failure
models were developed for the metals but not for orthotropic materials, therefore,
several macro-mechanical failure models are not able to predict polymer composite
behaviour due to the above reason. Because the presence of fibre in a composite causes
crack propagation in the matrix, truncated maximum strain failure criteria are incorpo-
rated with the local transverse tension stress failure model to predict composite failure
[232,233]. In another study, nonlinear behaviour of composites is studied by considering
3D laminated media analysis in which through-thickness stresses and strains are not
taken into account, unlike in classical laminated plate theory [234,235].
8.3.2. Shear damage

Totry et al. [236] studied in-plane shear stress properties of fibre-reinforced composites
using experimental and numerical analysis. They used computational micromechanics
for the simulation, which was able to account for constitutive properties of shear
behaviour. The results concluded that presence of fibre, matrix and interface has effect
on the macroscopic shear properties of the composites. They also found that the in-
plane shear response of cross ply laminates was dependent on matrix yield strength
and interface strength but independent of fibre properties.
Shear behaviour (Equation 23) [236] can be expressed as:
CII12 þ CI12
C12 ¼ (23)
2
?
where C12II
and C12 are the shear forces applied parallel and perpendicular to the fibre,
respectively.
Maximum and minimum stress (Equation 24) [236] are given by:
F ðrI ; rIII Þ ¼ ðrI ; rIII Þ þ ðrI ; rIII Þ sin /2c cos / ¼ 0 (24)
where rI and rII are the maximum and minimum principal stresses, / is the friction
angle and c is the flow stress of the matrix under pure shear.
Giannadakis et al. [237] studied the non-linear behaviour of unidirectional glass fab-
ric reinforced composites and found out that intra-laminar cracking, viscoelastic and
visco-plastic behaviours of lamina affect the non-linear behaviour. With the simulation,
they explained the dependency of non-linearity of the shear stress and strain curve on
166 G. JOGUR ET AL.
the strain rate through accumulation of viscoelastic and visco-plastic strains at the
time of loading.
The strain equation [237] contains viscoelastic and visco-plastic strain and micro-
damage parameter as shown below:
eðr; tÞ ¼ dðrmax Þ eVE ðr; tÞ þ dðrmax Þ eVP ðr; tÞ (25)
where d(rmax) is the microdamage parameter, eVE and eVP are the viscoelastic and
visco-plastic strains.
Different combinations of failure mechanisms exist in composites, and they require
different failure criteria, which further depend upon matrix and fibre failures. Totry
et al. [238] studied the composite failure under transverse compression and out-of-
plane shear stress; the authors considered three failure criteria namely those of
Hashin, Puck, and LaRC, and also reported a new failure criterion with help of the
simulation having interface de-cohesion. The author suggested using interface de-
cohesion in the simulation either in case of matrix dominated failure or fibre failure in
compression mode. In another study, Totry et al. [239] discussed the prediction of fail-
ure location of the composite under transverse compression and longitudinal shear
using computational micromechanics. Computational micromechanics is a tool for the
prediction of composite materials’ macroscopic behaviour using representative volume
element (RVE) in the microstructure via numerical simulation.
In the model, volume was meshed using modified quadratic10-node tetrahedral
C3D10M in Abaqus. A periodic boundary condition (Equations 26–28) [239] was
applied to the RVE surface to ensure continuity as shown in Figure 37.
u ð0; x2 ; x3 Þ~
~ u ðt; x2 ; x3 Þ ¼ ~
U1 (26)
~ u ðx2 ; L; x3 Þ ¼ ~
u ðx1 ; 0; x3 Þ~ U2 (27)
u ðx1 ; x2 ; 0Þ~
~ u ðx 1 ; x 2 ; L Þ ¼ ~
U3 (28)
where U1, U2, U3 are displacement vectors.
Figure 37. Schematic of the representative volume element of the lamina microstructure subjected
to transverse compression (r2) and longitudinal shear (s12) [239].
8.3.3. Inter-laminar damage modelling

Inter-laminar damage occurs between two layers of the lamina as depicted in
Figure 38. A cohesive zone method (CZM) is used to capture delamination damage. In
composite materials out of plane properties and vulnerability to delamination against
low-velocity impact are the concerns. In various literature, the cohesive crack model is
used for simulation of delamination in the composites. Critical energy rate is one of
the desired parameters used as an input for the simulation of delamination propaga-
tion [240].
The adhesive penalty interface is obtained by using the opening displacement to
calculate the adhesive forces [240].
P1 ¼ ð1 xÞk <D>þ þ k<D1 > (29)
P2 ¼ ð1 xÞkD2 (30)
P3 ¼ ð1 xÞkD3 (31)
Where Pi are the adhesive forces, Di are the relative displacements, x is the isotropic
damage parameter and k is the penalty stiffness.
Energy dissipated is given as [240]:
ðt
i ¼ Pi D_ i dt0 Pi Di
G (32)
2
0
The cohesive zone model is difficult to implement because it is a discrete model in

the continuum-based finite element method and it is also hard to predict the crack
path initially. To overcome this, a proposal has been made to insert an interface elem-
ent between all continuum elements for remeshing or mesh-free methods. Stress vs
displacement curves are shown in Figure 39 and schematic representation of cohesive
zone is shown in Figure 40 [241].
The cohesive zone model is generally used for materials other than concrete [242].
Cohesive surface is incorporated with all boundary conditions in finite element analysis
where damage may start. On introduction of the cohesive surface in finite element
analysis, the mechanical property depends upon mesh spacing [243]. Two components
are used in delamination models, one is the cohesive zone model and other is the
Figure 38. Delamination during fracture test [240].

168 G. JOGUR ET AL.
Figure 39. Schematic representation of a cohesive zone [241].
Figure 40. Stress-displacement curves for a ductile solid (left) and a quasi-brittle solid (right) [241].
adhesive penalty contact formulation model used for bonding initially tied shell ele-
ments. Because of adhesive penalty contact, it becomes possible to model composite
laminates using multiple layers of shell elements for each lamina, as it accounts for
thickness offset during calculation of penalty forces and the penalty model and hypo-
thetical delamination is shown in Figure 41 [212].
Equations containing f and g functions [212] used in the modelling of delamination
growth is shown in Equations (33 and 34):
" a a a #a1
hP1 iþ jP2 j jP3 j
f ðPi Þ ¼ þ þ (33)
P1C P2C P3C
2 !b !b !b 3b1

1Þ ¼ 4 G1
g ðG
G2
þ þ
G3 5
(34)

G 1C G 2C G 3C
where function f(Pi) belongs to [0,1], which defines a normalized measure of the
forces, function g(Gi) belongs to [0,1], which defines a normalized measure of the
energy dissipated and a and b are material parameters.
8.3.4. 3D orthotropic plasticity constitutive model

It is essential to develop a model which can predict the response of composites pre-
cisely upon impact testing. To achieve this, a combined elastoplastic material model
has been developed to implement it in dynamic finite element codes and also in
stress- strain response data to improve the material model [244]. Tsai-Wu failure crite-
ria are modified and extended to the strain-hardening model with a quadratic yield
function and non-associative flow rule. Another model was developed by Sun and
Chen by modifying Tsai-Wu failure criteria to consider plasticity of a composite mater-
ial for a good prediction [244].
Figure 41. Hypothetical delamination in a (0 /90 ) layup [212].
The orthotropic plasticity constitutive model was developed to study the behaviour
of a composite under high-velocity impact testing. Currently, the orthotropic plasticity
constitutive model includes three components namely deformation, damage, and fail-
ure but in most of the elasto-plastic models only two of the factors are considered;
the model can be used with solid and shell element in explicit finite element analysis
[245]. In the algorithm used to implement the material model [245] the elastic and
inelastic strain are considered but not rate and temperature dependence. Various elas-
tic and plastic parameters are considered like a plastic Poisson’s ratio for plastic mate-
rials to calculate the coefficient used in the plastic potential function. For a more
precise model, more data is required.
In another paper, a virtual test is carried out for obtaining an efficient and reliable
characterization of composites with the help of a generalized method of cell microme-
chanics approach, as stress and strain data are difficult to extract. This stress and plas-
tic strain are used in plastic constitutive equations. In this virtual analysis method, a
repeated unit cell is divided into sub-cells, each of which can be assigned to different
material. Each sub-cell is combined with the constitutive equations which result in a
series of algebraic equations that can be solved for local stresses and strains in each
sub-cell given in the global strains. This makes the process very efficient [246].
9. Applications of thermoplastic composites

9.1. Automobile industry
Studies proclaim that 75% of fuel consumption is due to the vehicle’s weight, so every
10% reduction in weight can lead to a 6–8% increase in fuel economy [247].
Advantages obtained by reducing the weight of vehicles are enhanced performance,
increased customer value, diminished threat from high fuel prices, and decreased
dependency on hybrids and hydrogen-fuelled cars. Lightweight fibre-reinforced com-
posites can therefore help in increasing fuel efficiency by lowering the automobile
weight and contribute to a decrease in the emission of harmful pollutants. There is
considerable interest in making automobiles lighter without affecting other properties
170 G. JOGUR ET AL.
and advanced composites offer many advantages over conventional metals in the
automotive and transportation sectors:
1. 20–40% weight reduction.

2. styling flexibility
3. tooling cost reduction by 40–60%
4. reduction in cost associated with assembly and time in part consolidation
5. resistance to corrosion, scratches, dents, noise vibration harshness (NVH) and
higher damping
6. innovation in materials and processes adds value and provides cost savings
7. safer structure due to higher specific energy absorption [22].
Figure 42 demonstrates the FRP-composites based automotive components devel-

oped at different research institutes for various load-bearing applications. In all of these
products continuous glass-fibre reinforcement and a thermoplastic matrix are used.
Some parts which may not be subjected to high loading, made of GMT (glass mat
reinforced thermoplastics) or LFT (long fibre reinforced thermoplastics) are shown in
Figure 43. Examples include dashboards, front ends, spare tyre holders, etc.
Given the expression of environmental concerns, American and European car mak-
ers have already started to use natural fibres in their automotive components. Natural
fibre-reinforced composites are extensively used in automobile industry for applica-
tions such seat backs, parcel shelves, boot liners, front and rear door liners, truck lin-
ers, and door-trim panels [248]. American automobile companies are promoting
natural products made from vegetable fibres such as jute, hemp, and kenaf reinforced
with thermoplastic and thermosetting resins and the German companies BMW, Audi
Group, Opel, Ford (Germany), Volkswagen, Daimler Chrysler, and Mercedes all utilize
cellulose fibre composites in various automobile parts. About 1.5 million vehicles with
Figure 42. FRP in load-bearing automobile structures [22].

Figure 43. Final parts out of GMT/LFT in European automotive. Source: Symalit, GEP [22].
Table 4. Typical weight of natural fibres in the automotive component [248].

Automotive Component Typical weight of fibres (kg)
Front door liners 1.2–1.8
Rear door liners 0.8–1.5
Boot liners 1.5–2.5
Parcel shelves up to 2.0
Seat backs 1.6–2.0
Sunroof sliders up to 0.4
NVH material (minimum) 0.5
Headliners (average) 2.5
natural fibre composite fittings are already in use, and it may be expected that the
use of natural fibres in the automotive sector could exceed 54% by weight. Typical
weights of natural fibres used in automotive components are given in Table 4.
Daimler Chrysler, the German multinational automobile company uses abaca fibres
in exterior underfloor protection for passenger cars. The company uses bio-fibre rein-
forced composites in their different models consisting of 20–25 components of weight
about 12–25 kg. The Ford automotive company (Germany) uses Kenaf fibre in their
model the Ford Mondeo. Door panels of this model are manufactured with Kenaf fibre
reinforced polypropylene composites [249] and the Opel Vectra uses hybrid Kenaf and
flax fibre composites in its package trays and door panels. Volkswagen developed seat-
backs, door panels, boot-lid finish panels and boot-liners for use in the Passat Variant,
Golf, A4, and Bora models using NFTP composites. BMW group already used about
10,000 tons of natural fibres in 2004. All BMW 7 models are built with about 24 kg of
renewable fibres such as sisal and flax in their interior door lining panels, cotton in
soundproofing, wool in upholstery and wood fibre in seat back. Cambridge Industries
Inc., Madison Heights, Michigan USA, developed rear-shelf trim panels for the Chevrolet
Impala 2000 model and the Freightliner Century COE C- 2 heavy trucks using flax fibre
polypropylene composite [250]. Table 5 shows usage of natural-fibre reinforced
thermoplastic composites in different models from various automotive manufacturers.
172 G. JOGUR ET AL.
Table 5. Automotive manufacturers, models, and components using natural fibre composites
[248].
Automotive
manufacturer Model and Applications
Audi A2, A3, A4, A4 Avant, A6, A8, Roadstar, Coupe: Seat back, side and back door panel, boot
lining, hat rack, spare tyre lining
BMW 3,5 and 7 series and others: Door panels, headliner panel, boot lining, seat back
Daimler–Chrysler A, C, E, S class: Door panels, windshield/dashboard, business table, pillar cover panel
A class, Travego bus: exterior underbody protection trim
M class: Instrument panel (Now in S class: 27 (parts manufactured from biofibres,
weight 43 kg)
Fiat Punto, Brava, Marea, Alfa Romeo 146, 156
Ford Mondeo CD 162, Focus: Door panels, B-pillar, boot liner
Opel Astra, Vectra, Zafira: Headliner panel, door panels, pillar cover panel, instrumental panel
Peugeot New model 406
Renault Clio
Rover Rover 2000 and others: Insulation, rear storage shelf/panel
Saab Door panels
SEAT Door panels, seat back
Volkswagen Golf A4, Passat Variant, Bora: Door panel, seat back, boot-lid finish panel, boot liner
Volvo C70, V70
Mitsubishi Space star: Door panels
Colt: Instrumental panels
9.2. Aerospace applications

In the 1960s and 1970s, most aerospace composite manufacturers used the hand
layup technique, a method borrowed from the boat-building industry. In the 1980s,
the variability and inconsistency associated with the wet layup process was overcome
by the introduction of more consistent, repeatable hand-laid prepeg materials. In the
1990s, thermosetting resin prepeg production facilitated more-productive automated
fibre placement and tape-laying technology. However, during the first decade of the
twenty-first century the autoclave processing technique was introduced for the pro-
duction of both thermosetting resin and thermoplastic composites, improving the rate
of production speed and reducing fabrication costs.
As the present trend is shifting towards thermoplastic composites due to their pro-
cess/cost efficiency and excellent mechanical properties, they are capturing a significant
part of the aerospace raw materials market. Thermoplastic resins such as PEEK, PPS, PEI
and PC show suitable properties for the aerospace structures and interior components.
Even though the cost of thermoplastics suitable for aerospace applications may be
much higher than their counterpart thermosetting resins, there is roughly a 20–40%
cost reduction in the finished product, attributable to reduced handling, processing,
and assembly costs. One more merit of thermoplastics is that they can be either fused
or welded, however, the penetration of thermoplastic composites has been slow despite
their advantages. Adoption of TPC in aircraft started with some of the European manu-
facturers, who took the lead in developing many structural components incorporating
TPC. Among those manufacturers, the Fokker aerospace company (The Netherlands)
was the first to introduce TPC-based undercarriage doors in their Fokker 50 aircraft and
this was its first successful structural application as carbon/PPS prepegs were used to
construct the ribs and spars of this door. Since the mid-1990s, Fokker Aerostructures BV
(Hoogeveen, The Netherlands) supplies pressure and non-pressure floor panels to the
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. (Savannah, Ga.) for its intercontinental luxury jets. The
Boeing Company’s 787 family of airliners uses 10,000 to 15,000 clips and cleats to secure
exterior skins to circular frame sections, which are TPC made from carbon/PPS. Airbus
XWB uses similar parts, about 8000 per aircraft and currently, TPC clips, brackets, and
support rails are integral parts of some aircraft platforms [251]. Applications include:
i. panels for lavatories, galley equipment, and service alloys,

ii. sidewall and ceiling attachment rails,
iii. pans, backs, and trays,
iv. frames in premium and coach passenger seats (in Airbus A330 and A340 families),
and
v. storage bin brackets (Boeing 787).
Thermoplastic skins reinforced with welded ribs weigh 20% less than aluminum
counterparts and are currently in service in the Airbus A340-600 and A380. The A340-
600 Airbus has Carbon/PPS ribs, and angle brackets in 18 m long keel beam internal
structures which eventually reduces weights by 20–50% over aluminum and titanium;
it also features some TPC ribs in the main body, angle brackets and panels in its struc-
tures. TPC parts are comparatively small in size, but more than 1000 individual compo-
nents have been used at a mass of 2.27 metric tons, which is about 7.5% of the total
airframe weight [251].
TP composites made from carbon/PEI are used as the acoustic liners in several
major turbofan engines. Brackets, supporting hoses, cables, and printed circuits are
the parts made from carbon/PEEK TPC and have found their applications in jet engines
of many civil and military aircraft. TPC engine seals, shielding components, trusses,
and other structures are also being made and planned for future engine families. The
cargo floors of the CH-53K heavy–lift helicopter of US marine demonstrate effective,
low-cost manufacturing and assembling of TPC. Gulfstream’s G450, G550, and G650
business jets adopted TPC floor panels and Airbus Military’s A400M cockpit flooring is
also made from a variety of TPC profiles. The G650 aircraft features the first welded
TPC rudder and elevator tail section, which was developed by Fokker.
Use of TPC in aircraft interiors was expected to reach between 134 and 283 metric
tonnes by the year 2014. The volume of TPC usage in interiors may easily double or
triple over the 2014 to 2023 forecast period and total TPC may reach at least 11% of
the total aerospace market by the end of this forecast [251].
9.3. Biomedical applications

Large number of polymers such as polyethylene (PE), polyurethane (PU), polytetra-
fluoroethylene (PTFE), polyacetal (PA), poly (methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), polyethyl-
ene terephthalate (PET), silicone rubber (SR), polysulfone (PS), polyetheretherketone
(PEEK), poly(lactic acid) (PLA), and poly(glycolic acid) (PGA) are commonly used in vari-
ous biomedical applications [252]. Polymers like UHMWPE (ultra-high molecular weight
polyethylene) are used in joint replacements, elastomers like silicones and polyether
urethanes in blood-containing devices and an array of acrylic products in bone
cement and dental restorations. Thermoplastics offer more suitable compatibility over
174 G. JOGUR ET AL.
Figure 44. CF/PEEK composites screws [251].
Figure 45. An injection moulded CF/PEEK composite stem for total hip replacement [251].
thermosetting resins [253], hence, carbon fibre/high-density PE thermoplastic compo-

sites are employed in clinical practice due to their excellent mechanical properties,
and they are also used as Mueller acetabular cups for total hip replacement [254].
Charnley initiated the first total hip replacement caps using UHMWPE reinforced com-
posites [255]. Mayer developed bone plate from commingled carbon/PEEK knitted
composites [256,257] and Ramakrishna et al. [258] developed bone plate from braided
CF/PEEK. Some researchers developed CF/carbon, CF/PEEK-based composite screws or
osteosynthethesis as showed in Figure 44. A TP composite stem for total hip replace-
ments is also shown in Figure 45. Ramakrishna et al. [252] reviewed the biomedical
applications of various thermoplastic polymer composite materials and listed their
applications as shown in Figure 46. Applications include
i. bone fracture repair, which includes bone plate, intramedullary nails,

ii. spine instrumentation,
iii. joint replacements, which include total hip replacement, total knee replacement,
and ankle, toe, elbow, wrist, and finger joint, shoulder replacement,
iv. dental applications,
v. soft tissue applications (bulk space fillers, wound dressing, ureter prosthesis, cath-
eters, tendons and ligaments, vascular grafts,
vi. medical instrumentations.
Figure 46. Various applications of different polymer composites in biomedical applications [251].
10. Conclusions and recommendations

Many traditional metallic and thermoset based products are now being replaced by
thermoplastic composites due to their exceptional properties. However, thermoplastic
composites are being put into applications where they are expected to experience
impact forces at different energy levels during use and may fail, therefore the impact
performance of these composites needs to be enhanced whilst still maintaining their
much-reduced weight and cost. These composites are complex in nature and
176 G. JOGUR ET AL.
designers/engineers need better information to help them to understand the various

factors influencing their impact performance.
Composite designers must have knowledge of the essential properties of various
fibres and matrices and must appreciate the importance of fibre-matrix interface adhe-
sion and be able to predict their effect on impact behaviour before proceeding to
fabricate the composites. Other than this, one must know the influence that various
test parameters and specimen parameters can have on the impact performance of
these composites. In this issue of textile progress, and the significance of crucial
aspects of structure and composition of thermoplastic composites starting from fibre
and matrix selection to hybridization and surface modification is discussed in detail.
Synthetic and natural fibre reinforced thermoplastic composites are widening their
application in many fields including automobile, aerospace, defence, medical, agricul-
ture, civil construction, and transportation. Continuous filament high-performance
materials such as KevlarV, carbon, glass, and UHMWPE are commonly used in many
R
structural composite applications due to their excellent mechanical and thermal prop-
erties while biodegradable natural-fibre thermoplastic composites are being employed
in many applications due to their potential to contribute to sustainability.
More research needs to be focused on improving the impact performance of the
natural fibre composts since they are often lacking in this respect. It is unrealistic to
think of replacing glass and high-performance fibres in thermoplastic composites with
natural fibres, as NFTP composites could not match the performance of competitive
high performance fibre-based composites. Therefore, researchers need to concentrate
on developing products for less-demanding applications where NFTP composites
could fit in terms of a performance to price category.
Similar to the situation which has applied for some time to reinforcing fibres, many
thermoplastic polymers with superior performance are now available in today’s market,
and they need to be explored for different applications. For example, high-performance
TP polymers such as PEEK, PEI, PI, and PPS have high melt-processing temperatures
and offer better mechanical and impact properties than thermosetting resins, but when
used as the matrix in thermoplastic composites, these polymers require machines with
high-temperature heating arrangements for forming, as they cannot be processed with
low-temperature equipment. Also, it is not possible to utilize reinforcing fibres which
have lower thermal stability with these high-performance polymers, for example,
UHMWPE, PP, PA, or PET; such polymers have melting points lower than the thermally
stable TP polymers and the reinforcing fibre would either melt or degrade in the poly-
meric resin and not offer the hoped-for load-bearing capacity. The reinforcing fibre
type needs to be carefully determined to overcome the restrictions imposed by the
thermally stable matrix material. In a different approach, the impact performance of
conventional thermosetting resins can be improved by toughening with thermoplastic
particles and there is keen interest in this research topic.
Textile structures/preforms are a big asset in manufacturing and developing compo-
sites with improved mechanical and impact properties. Each textile process such as
weaving, knitting, braiding, and now-woven has its own beneficial effect to confer on
the impact performance of TP composites. The structures obtained from these processes
offer tailor-made properties as the fibres and matrices can be employed in different
orientations and configurations, and according to the applications and level of impact
performance requirement the enable composites to be fabricated using UD, 2D, and 3D
preforms. In fact, hybridization is an important concept where the most-favourable
properties of different fibres and matrices can be utilized in the enhancement of a com-
posite’s properties. Composites made from hybrid yarns and co-woven preforms offer
ease in fabrication and improved impact resistance. Extensive research therefore needs
to be focused on the evaluation of the impact performance of hybrid combinations
such as different weave structures, different hybrid yarns and different co-woven fabric-
based TP composites. Composites may be exposed to a variety of different environmen-
tal conditions, not least when being utilized for long durations underwater, or exposed
to water vapour, corrosive substances and high temperatures, and such exposure dimin-
ishes the impact performance of TP composites. Very few researchers have reported
studies on the effect of environmental factors on the impact performance of TP compo-
sites which suggests that extensive research needs to be carried out on this topic.
The performance of composites can be evaluated without fabricating or damaging
them by conducting systematic simulation tests. Most of the available simulation mod-
els were originally developed explicitly for metallic materials for their homogeneity,
isotropic and specific defined properties, but now composites are becoming more
attractive than metals for many applications. The simulation software developed for
the metals are difficult to employ for composites since the composites are non-
homogenous, non-isotropic and can have tailor-made properties. The results obtained
by applying such numerical models directly will not provide a valid outcome as they
were developed for metals, so several new models have been developed for compo-
sites simulation testing based on combinations of different theories such as maximum
stress theory and maximum strain theory, that are more applicable to the case of com-
posites. Since the response of thermoplastic composites vary against impact testing by
virtue of their own particular mechanical properties such as tensile strength, shear
strength, stiffness and toughness, many models are now available that are capable of
taking account of these dominant factors for better result prediction, such as those
developed by Tsai, Hansen, Huang, and Puck, and included in the Second Worldwide
Failure Exercise (WWFE-II) this is encouraging [259].
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
[1] S.T. Peters, Handbook of Composites, 2nd ed. Chapman & Hall, London, 1998.
[2] M.O.W. Richardson and M.J. Wisheart, Compos. Part A. 27 (1996) p.1123.
[3] J. Kim and M. Sham, Compos. Sci. Technol. 60 (2000) p.745.
[4] W.J. Cantwell and J. Morto N, Composites 22 (1991) p.347.
[5] R. Alagirusamy, et al., Text. Prog. 38 (2006) p.1.
[6] U.K. Vaidya and K.K. Chawla, Int. Mater. Rev. 53 (2008) p.185.
[7] V. Goud, et al., Compos. Part B. 166 (2019) p.56.
[8] A. Gaurav and K.K. Singh, Polymer composites (2018) p.1785.
178 G. JOGUR ET AL.
[9] H. Hansmann and H. Wismar, Compendium Composites, Thermoplastic Resins, ASM

Handbook/Extraction. FB MVU, 2003.
[10] R. Kaldenhoff and B. Wulfhorst, Indian J. Fibre Text. Res. 22 (1997) p.255.
[11] V. Goud, et al., Fibres and Polymers 19 (2018) p.364.
[12] N. Razali, et al., Int. J. Eng. Sci 3 (2014) p.8.
[13] S. Abrate, Appl. Mech. Rev 44 (1991) p.155.
[14] R. Olsson, Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 31 (2000) p.879.
[15] T.M. Sjoblom, P.O. Hartness and J.T. Cordell, J. Compos. Mater 22 (1988) p.30.
[16] W. Shivakumar, K.N. Elber and W. Illg, AIAAJ. 23 (1985) p.442.
[17] L.E. Liu and D. Malvern, J. Compos. Mater. 21 (1987) p.594.
[18] C.T. Joshi and S.P. Sun, in American Society for Composites Second Technical
Conference (1987) p.177.
[19] N.V. Padaki, et al., Indian J. Fibre Text. Res. 33 (2008) p.189.
[20] J.L. Thomason and M.A. Vlug, Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 28 (1997) p.277.
[21] H. Bisaria, et al., Mater. Today Proc. 2 (2015) p.1193.
[22] K. Friedrich and A.A. Almajid, Appl Compos Mater. 20 (2013) p.107.
[23] S. Adanur and T. Liao, Compos. Part B Eng. 29 (1998) p.787.
[24] B.S. Sugun and R.M.V.G.K. Rao, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 19 (2000) p.743.
[25] J. Sen Gupta, et al., Composite science and technology. 65 (2005) p.375.
[26] T.W. Shyr and Y.H. Pan, Compos. Struct. 62 (2003) p.193.
[27] V. Lopresto, et al., Composite science and technology. 66 (2006) p.206.
[28] Marvin B. Dow and H. Benson Dexter, “Development of Stitched, Braided and Woven
Composite Structures in the ACT Program and at Langley Summary,” Langley research
center, Hampton, Viginia November 1997.
[29] K. Dransfield, et al., Composite science and technology. 50 (2006) p.305.
[30] A.P. Mouritzas, K.H. Leongb and I. Herszbergc, Composites part A. (1997) p.979.
[31] K. van Rijswijk and H.E.N. Bersee, Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 38 (2007) p.666.
[32] R. Stewart, Reinf. Plast. 55 (2011) p.22.
[33] B. Vieille, V.M. Casado and C. Bouvet, Compos. Struct. 101 (2013) p.9.
[34] S.L. Gao and J.K. Kim, Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 31 (2000) p.517.
[35] D. Garcia-Gonzalez, et al., Compos. Struct. 134 (2015) p.440.
[36] S. Lee, J. Cheon and Y. Im, Compos. Struct. 47 (1999) p.551.
[37] T. Mitrevski, et al., Compos. Struct. 67 (2005) p.139.
[38] A.K. Bandaru and S. Ahmad, Procedia Eng. 173 (2017) p.355.
[39] N. Naik, S. Borade and H. Arya, Journal of reinforced plastics and composites. 21 (2002) p.1347.
[40] N.K. Naik, Y. Chandra Sekher and S. Meduri, Compos. Sci. Technol. 60 (2000) p.731.
[41] W.A. de Morais, S.N. Monteiro and J.R.M. d’Almeida, Compos. Struct 70 (2005) p.223.
[42] W.J. Cantwell and J. Morton, Compos. Struct. 12 (1989) p.39.
[43] Hansong Huang, Ramesh Talreja, Compos. Sci. Technol. 65 (2005) p.1964.
[44] L. Di Landro, et al., Polym. Polym. Compos. 25 (2017) p.371.
[45] L. Liu, et al., Compos. Struct. 73 (2006) p.303.
[46] A. Selmi, 2nd International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering and
Technology (ICETET’2014), May 30-31, 2014 London (UK) (2014) p.179.
[47] S.A. Hitchen and R.M.J. Kemp, Composites 26 (1995) p.207.
[48] E. Fuoss, P.V. Straznicky and C. Poon, Compos. Struct. 41 (1998) p.177.
[49] L. Onal and S. Adanur, J. Ind. Text. 31 (2002) p.255.
[50] G. Dorey, “Failure mode of composite materials with organic matrices and their
consequences in design,” in AGARD conference proceedings, 1975.
[51] S. Hong and D. Liu, Exp. Mech. 29 (1989) p.115.
[52] L.H. Strait, M.L. Karasek and M.F. Amateau, J. Compos. Mater. 26 (1992) p.1725.
[53] M.K. Hazzard, et al., Int. J. Impact Eng. 100 (2017) p.35.
[54] Y. Karaduman, et al., Polym Compos. 36 (2015) p.2167.
[55] A.R. Offringa, Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 27 (1996) p.329.
[56] N.O.T. Measurement, “Composite materials handbook” Measurement. 2 (2002) p.5.
[57] M.K. Gupta and R.K. Srivatsav., Polymer-Plastics technology and engineering. 55 (2016) p.626.
[58] P. Huang, et al., Polym Eng Sci. 47 (2007) p.1052.
[59] A.A. Klyosov, Wood-Plastic Composites. John Wiley Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2007.
[60] R.K. Kaul, A.F. Barghouty and H.M. Dahche, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1027 (2004) p.138.
[61] Xingyi Huang et al., Polymer engineering science. 47 (2007) p. 21.
[62] P.N. Khanam and M.A.A. Al Maadeed, Adv. Manuf. Polym. Compos. Sci. 1 (2015) p.63.
[63] E.J. Shahwan, Fabr. Compos. Cover. (1990) p.1990.
[64] C. Soutis, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 412 (2005) p.171.
[65] R.J. Crawford, Composite manufacturing. 6 (1995) p.245.
[66] D.F. Walczyk, J.F. Hosford and J.M. Papazian, J Manuf Sci Eng. 125 (2003) p.333.
[67] J. Dıaz and L. Rubio, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 143–144, no. 1 (2003) p.342.
[68] P.K. Vagholkar, Int. J. Sci. Res 5 (2016) p.4.
[69] J.O. Akindoyo, et al., RSC Adv. 6 (2016) p.114453.
[70] M.S. Gaur, et al., J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 111 (2013) p.743.
[71] R. Johnson and H.S. Burlhis, Journal of polymer science: Polymer Symposium. 70 (1983) p.129.
[72] R.K. Goyal, Y.S. Negi and A.N. Tiwari, Eur. Polym. J. 41 (2005) p.2034.
[73] C.J. Schwartz and S. Bahadur, Wear. 237 (2000) p.261.
[74] M. Scale, “Tecatron V R PPS ( Polyphenylene Sulfide ),” Plastic international, pp. 0–1.
[75] H.L. Bos, The Potential of Flax Fibres as Reinforcement for Composite Materials http://
www.tue.nl/bib (2004)
[76] H.M. Akil, et al., Mater. Des. 32 (2011) p.4107.
[77] T.D. Hapuarachchi, G. Ren, and M. Fan, Appl Compos Mater. 14 (2007) p.251.
[78] A. Bledzki and J. Gassan, Prog. Polym. Sci. 24 (1999) p.221.
[79] A.K. Rana, B.C. Mitra and A.N. Banerjee, J Appl Polym Sci. 71 (1999) p.531.
[80] A.K. Rana, A. Mandal and S. Bandyopadhyay, Compos. Sci. Technol. 63 (2003) p.801.
[81] D. Puglia, J. Biagiotti and J.M. Kenny, J. Nat. Fibers. 1 (2005) p.23.
[82] M.M. Haque, et al., Bioresour. Technol. 100 (2009) p.4903.,
[83] X. Chen, Q. Guo and Y. Mi, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 69 (1998) p.1891.
[84] A. Stamboulis, et al., Appl. Compos. Mater 7 (2000) p.273.
[85] R. Heijenrath and T. Peijs, Adv Compos Lett. 5 (1996) p.81.
[86] J.L. Thomason and J.L. Rudeiros-Fernandez, Frontier in materials 5 (2018) p.1.
[87] P. Threepopnatkul, N. Kaerkitcha and N. Athipongarporn, Compos. Part B. 40 (2009) p.628.
[88] A.E. Langhorst, et al., Bioresources. 13 (2018) p.820.
[89] Amir Nourbakhsh et al., Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 27 (2008) p.1679.
[90] H. Yang, et al., Composite structures 63 (2004) p.305.
[91] H. Liu, Q. Wu and Q. Zhang, Bioresour. Technol. 100 (2009) p.6088.
[92] N.E. Marcovich and M.A. Villar, Journal of Applied Polymer Science 90 (2003) p.2775.
[93] F. Yao, et al., Industrial Crops & Products. 8 (2008) p.63.
[94] S. Mohanty and, S.K. Nayak, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos 29 (2010) p.2199.
[95] S. Mohanty et al., Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites. 23 (2004) p.2047.
[96] S. Mohanty, S.K. Verma and S.K. Nayak, Composites Science and Technology. 66 (2006) p.538.
[97] S. Pailoor, H.N.N. Murthy and P. Hadimani, J. Nat. Fibers (2018) p.1.
[98] K. Jayaraman, Composites Science and Technology. 63 (2003) p.367.
[99] M.D.H. Beg and K.L. Pickering, Compos. Part A. 39 (2008) p.1748.
[100] X.L. Xie, et al., Journal of Polymer Science: Part B: Polymer Physics. (2006) p.1214.,
[101] R. Karnani, M. Krsihnan, and R. Narayan, Polymer engineering and science. 37 (1997).
[102] M. Haque and S. Islam, N. Islam, Journal of polymer research (2012).
[103] R. Rahman et al., J. Reinf. Plast. composites. 29 (2010) p.445.
[104] A.K. Bledzki, A.A. Mamun and V.S. Gutowski, eXPRESS Polymer Letters. 2 (2008) p.413.
[105] M. Alamgir Kabir et al., Bioresources. 5 (2010) p.1618.
[106] A.N.M.M. Rahman, et al., International Journal of Engineering Materials and Manufacture.
3 (2018) p.18.
[107] X. Li, et al., Carbohydr. Polym. 87 (2012) p.2000.
[108] N. Islam, et al., Compos. Part A. 41 (2010) p.192.
180 G. JOGUR ET AL.
[109] R. Rahman, et al., Compos. Part A. 40 (2009) p.511.

[110] R. Rahman, et al., Compos. Part A. 39 (2008) p.1739.
[111] N.L. Hancox, Fibre Composite Hybrid Materials. Applied Science, London, 1981.
[112] S.N.A. Safri, et al., Compos. Part B Eng. 133 (2018) p.112.
[113] N.L. Hancox, J Mater Sci. 19 (1984) p.1969.
[114] E. Sevkat, B. Liaw and F. Delale, Mater. Des. 52 (2013) p.67.
[115] J. Summerscales and D. Short, Composite. 9 (1978) p.157.
[116] G. Marom, et al., J Mater Sci. 13 (1978) p.1419.
[117] N.V. David, X.-L. Gao and J.Q. Zheng, Appl Mech Rev. 62 (2009) p.050802.
[118] A.K. Bandaru, et al., Mater. Des. 105 (2016) p.323.
[119] A.K. Bandaru, S. Ahmad and N. Bhatnagar, Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 97 (2017) p.151.
[120] B. Yang, et al., Compos. Struct. 132 (2015) p.464.
[121] N. Dubary, et al., Compos. Struct. 168 (2017) p.663.
[122] J. Flynn, A. Amiri and C. Ulven, Mater. Des. 102 (2016) p.21.
[123] M. Jawaid and H.P.S. Abdul Khalil, Carbohydr. Polym. 86 (2011) p.1.
[124] K. Jarukumjorn and N. Suppakarn, Compos. Part B. Eng. 40 (2009) p.623.
[125] S.K. Samal, S. Mohanty and S.K. Nayak, Polymer-Plast. Technol. Eng. 48 (2009) p.397.
[126] C. Guo, L. Zhou and J. Lv, Polym. Polym. Compos. 21 (2013) p.449.
[127] A. Haneefa, et al., J. Compos. Mater. 42 (2008) p.1471.
[128] S. Ochi, Mechanics of Materials. 40 (2008) p.446.
[129] N. Graupner, A.S. Herrmann and J. Mu €ssig, Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 40 (2009)
p.810.
[130] M.A. Khan, J. Ganster and H.P. Fink, Compos. Part A. Appl. Sci. Manuf. 40 (2009) p.846.
[131] K.L. Pickering, M.G.A. Efendy and T.M. Le, Compos. Part A. Appl. Sci. Manuf. 83 (2016)
p.98.
[132] R.B. Yusoff, H. Takagi and A.N. Nakagaito, Ind. Crops Prod. 94 (2016) p.562.
[133] B. Asaithambi, G. Ganesan and S. Ananda Kumar, Fibers Polym. 15 (2014) p.847.
[134] A.A. Perez-Fonseca, et al., Mater. Des. 64 (2014) p.35.
[135] J.N. Sultan and F.J. McGarry, Polym Eng Sci. 13 (1973) p.29.
[136] A.C. Moloney, et al., J Mater Sci. 22 (1987) p.381.
[137] R.J. Varley, J.H. Hodgkin and G.P. Simon, Polymer (Guildf). 42 (2001) p.3847.
[138] M.R. Ricciardi, et al., Compos. Part B Eng. 139 (2018) p.259.
[139] C.W. Wise, W.D. Cook and A.A. Goodwin, Polymer (Guildf). 41 (2000) p.4625.
[140] D. Ratna, A.K. Banthia and P.C. Deb, J Appl Polym Sci. 80 (2001) p.1792.
[141] Y. Nakamura, et al., Polymer (Guildf). 31 (1990) p.2066.,
[142] A. Ramasamy, Y. Wang and J. Muzzy, Polym Compos. 17 (1996) p.515.
[143] J.H. Hodgkin, G.P. Simon and R.J. Varley, Polym Adv Technol. 9 (1998) p.3.
[144] H. Shin, et al., Compos. Sci. Technol. 145 (2017) p.173.
[145] V. Di Liello, et al., Angew Makromol Chemie. 213 (1993) p.93.
[146] G. Di Pasquale, et al., Polymer (Guildf). 38 (1997) p.4345.
[147] R.D. Brooker, A.J. Kinloch and A.C. Taylor, J. Adhes. 86 (2010) p.726.
[148] A.J. Kinloch, M.L. Yuen and S.D. Jenkins, J. Mater Sci. 29 (1994) p.3781.
[149] P. Van Velthem, et al., Compos. Part B Eng. 101 (2016) p.14.
[150] R.A. Pearson and A.F. Yee, Polymer (Guildf). 34 (1993) p.3658.
[151] Z.B. Ahmad, M.F. Ashby and P.W.R. Beaumont, Scr. Metall. 20 (1986) p.843.
[152] F.F. Lange, Philos. Mag. 22 (1970) p.0983.
[153] A.G. Evans, Philos. Mag. 26 (1972) p.1327.
[154] S.C. Kim and H.R. Brown, J Mater Sci. 22 (1987) p.2589.
[155] F. Gao and T. Wang, J Mater Sci Lett. 9 (1990) p.1409.
[156] B. Lauke, U. Bunzel and K. Schneider, Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 29 (1998) p.1397.
[157] C. Thanomsilp and P.J. Hogg, Compos. Sci. Technol. 63 (2003) p.467. 4,
[158] F.K. Ko and G.W. Du, Handb. Compos (1998) p.397.
[159] R. Kamiya, et al., Compos. Sci. Technol. 60 (2000) p.33.
[160] J. Brandt, K. Drechslef and F. Arendtsb, Composite science and technology. 3538 (1996) p.381.
[161] N. Padaki, R. Alagirusamy, B. Sugun, Journal of Industrial Textiles. 35 (2006) p. 295.

[162] R.M.V.G.K. Rao, G.A. Nahar, R, R. Alagirusamyb, 25 (2000) p.1.
[163] A.S.A.M.M.V.R. Giri Dev, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 24 (2005) p.1425.
[164] F.R. Jones, Handbook of Polymer-fibre Composites. Longman, Harlow, 1994.
[165] D. Das and D. Pourdeyhimi, Composite Nonwoven Materials: structure, properties and
Applications. Elsevier, Burlington, 2014.
[166] L.R. Sanders, Sampe Quarterly. 8 (1977) p.38.
[167] C. Head, A.A. Ko and F.K. Pastore, Handbook of Industrial Braiding. Atkins and Pearce,
Covington, KY, 1989.
[168] J.B. Sainsbury-Carter, Adv. Technol. Mater. Process. 1486–1497 (1985)
[169] K. Bilisik, Textile research journal. 83 (2013) p.1414.
[170] A.P. Mouritz, et al., Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 30 (1999) p.1445.
[171] M. Etcheverry and S.E. Barbosa, Materials (Basel). 5 (2012) p.1084.
[172] M.J. Salkind, Surfaces Interfaces II. (1968) p.417.
[173] M.M. Kabir, et al., Compos. Part B Eng. 43 (2012) p.2883.
[174] O. Faruk, et al., Prog. Polym. Sci. 37 (2012) p.1552.
[175] M.N. Belgacem, P. Bataille and S. Sapieha, Journal of applied polymer science. 53 (1994) p.379.
[176] M. Ragoubi, et al., Ind. crops and products 31 (2010) p.344.
[177] B. Held, et al., Surface and interface analysis. (2005) p.544.
[178] S. Fangueiro, Mukhopadyay, Journal of thermoplastic composite materials. 22 no. March (2009).
[179] J Y Jeong et al., Plasma sources science technology. 7 (1998).
[180] K.G. Satyanarayana, et al., Cem. Concr. Compos. 12 (1990) p.117.
[181] J. Cruz and R. Fangueiro, Procedia Eng. 155 (2016) p.285.
[182] K.L. M. Pickering, et al., Journal Biobased Mater. Bioenergy 1 (2007) p.109.
[183] M.A. Jafari et al., Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 10 (2007).
[184] A.B. Pommet, et al., Biomacromolecules 9 (2008) p.1643.
[185] D. Gulati and AEM. Sain, Journal of polymer environment. 14 (2006) p.347.
[186] A.K. Bledzki, et al., Compos. Sci. Technol. 70 (2010) p.854.
[187] A.A. Mamun and A.K. Bledzki, Compos. Sci. Technol. 78 (2013) p.10.
[188] A. Wood and W.L. Bradley, Compos. Sci. Technol. 3538 (1997) p.1033.
[189] S.B. Kumar, I. Sridhar and S. Sivashanker, Material science and Engineering A. 498 (2008) p.174.
[190] B.D. Balatinecz and J.J. Park, J. Thermoplast. Compos. Mater. 10 (1997) p.476.
[191] Z.A.M. Ishak, et al., J Appl Polym Sci. 81 (2001) p.742.
[192] S. Panthapulakkal, S. Law and M. Sain, J Appl Polym Sci. 100 (2006) p.3619.
[193] S. Kuciel, P. Jakubowska and P. Kuzniar, Compos. Part B Eng. 64 (2014) p.72.
[194] J. Kreikemeier and T. Wille, Engineering failure analysis. 86 (2018) p.72.
[195] A. P. Christoforou and a. S. Yigit, J. Sound Vib. 217 (1998) p.563.
[196] A.P. Christoforou, Compos. Struct 52 (2001)
[197] H. Singh and P. Mahajan, Compos. Struct. 149 (2016) p.79.
[198] R. Olsson, Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf 32 (2001) p.1207.
[199] S.R. Swanson, Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 36 (2005) p.1421.
[200] R. Olsson, Int. J. Solids Struct. 47 (2010) p.2884.
[201] F. Najafi, M.H. Shojaeefard and H. Saeidi Googarchin, Compos. Struct. 162 (2017) p.351.
[202] J.W.H. Yap, et al., “Composite Stiffened Panel Impact Damage Simulations And
Parametric Studies,” In Proceedings of Tenth Australian International Aerospace Congress
(AIAC-10), Brisbane, Australia., 2003.
[203] R. Bogenfeld and J. Kreikemeier, Compos. Struct. 168 (2017) p.608.
[204] J. Baaran, L. K€arger and A. Wetzel, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part G J. Aerosp. Eng. 222 (2008) p.179.
[205] L. K€arger, J. Baaran and J. Teßmer, Comput. Struct. 86 (2008) p.988.
[206] A.F. Johnson, A.K. Pickettb and P. Rozyckic, Compos. Sci. Technol 61 (2001) p.10.
[207] L. K€arger, et al., Compos. Part B Eng. 40 (2009) p.65.
[208] G. Molnar and A. Gravouil, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 130 (2017) p.27.
[209] R. Borg, L. Nilsson and K. Simonsson, Compos. Sci. Technol. 61 (2001) p.667.
[210] C. Bouvet, S. Rivallant and J.J. Barrau, 14th Eur. Conf. Compos. Mater (2010) p.1. no. June,
182 G. JOGUR ET AL.
[211] D. Krause, Compos. Part B Eng. 87 (2016) p.176.

[213] K. Rohwer, J. Compos. Mater. 49 (2015) p.2673.
[214] C. Soutis, G. Mohamed and A. Hodzic, Compos. Struct. 94 (2011) p.267.
[215] P.F. Liu, et al., Compos. Struct. 149 (2016) p.408.
[216] Y. Shi, C. Pinna and C. Soutis, Compos. Struct. 114 (2014) p.10. no. 1.
[217] O. Allix and P. Ladeveze, Compos. Struct. 22 (1992) p.235.
[218] A.S. Kaddour and M.J. Hinton, J. Compos. Mater. 47 (2013) p.925.
[219] B.A. Gama and J.W. Gillespie, Int. J. Impact Eng. 38 (2011) p.181.
[220] A. Riccio, et al., Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 231 (2017) p.3077.
[221] C.S. Lopes, et al., Int. J. Impact Eng. 92 (2016) p.3.
[222] E. Panettieri, et al., Compos. Part B Eng. 107 (2016) p.9.
[223] S. Chen, et al., Compos. Part B Eng. 122 (2017) p.47.
[224] G. Nian, et al., Compos. Part B Eng. 89 (2016) p.18.
[225] Y. Huang, L. Xu and S. Kyu Ha, J. Compos. Mater. 46 (2012) p.2431.
[226] J. Tsai and Y. Chi, Compos. Part B 39 (2008) p.1196.
[227] N. Hongkarnjanakul, C. Bouvet and S. Rivallant, Compos. Struct. 106 (2013) p.549.
[228] D. Ivancevic and I. Smojver, Compos. Struct. 145 (2016) p.248.
[229] C.G.C. Lopes, S. Sadaba and F. Naya, In Proc. Am. Soc. Compos. – 29th Tech. Conf.
Compos. Mater (2014) p.59.
[230] T.A. Bogetti, et al., Composite science and technology. 64 (2004) p.329.
[231] A. Puck, J. Kopp and M. Knops, Compos. Sci. Technol. 62 (2002) p.371.
[232] J.R.A.M.H. Hertz, Ueber Die Beru €rper, “No Title,” 92 p.156.
€hrung Fester Elastischer Ko
[233] L J Hart-Smith, Compos. Sci. Technol. 58 (1998).
[234] B. Bogetti, et al., Compos Sci. 64 (2004) p.477.
[235] T.A. Bogetti, et al., Compos. Sci. Technol. 64 (2004) p.329.
[236] E. Totry, et al., Compos. Sci. Technol. 70 (2010) p.970.
[237] K. Giannadakis and J. Varna, Compos. Part A. Appl. Sci. Manuf. 62 (2014) p.67.
[238] E. Totry, C. Gonzalez and J. LLorca, Compos. Sci. Technol. 68 (2008) p.829.
[239] E. Totry, C. Gonzalez and J. LLorca, Compos. Sci. Technol. 68 (2008) p.3128.
[241] R. de Borst, Eng. Fract. Mech. 70 (2003) p.1743.
[242] M. Elices, et al., Eng. Fract. Mech. 69 (2002) p.137.
[243] J. R. Falk, M.L. Needleman and A. Rice, “A critical evaluation of cohesive zone models of
dynamic fracture,” in Proceedings of the 5th European mechanics of materials conference
on scale transitions from atomistics to continuum plasticity, 2001, pp. 43–50.
[244] R.K. Goldberg, et al., J Aerosp Eng. 29 (2016) p.04015083.
[245] C. Hoffarth, et al., Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 91 (2016) p.336.
[246] J. Harrington, et al., J. Aerosp. Eng 30 (2017) p.04017025.
[247] A.S. Kaddour, et al., The worldwide failure exercises: how can composites design and
manufacture communities build their strength? 16th European conference on composite
materials, Seville (2014).
[248] C. Alves, et al., J. Clean. Prod. 18 (2010) p.313.
[249] A.K. Bledzki, O. Faruk and V.E. Sperber, Macromol Mater Eng. 291 (2006) p.449.
[250] L. Mohammed, et al., International Journal of Polymer Science. (2015) p.1–15.
[251] R. Chris, Composite world. Article post 9/1/2014. (2014).
[252] S. Ramakrishna, et al., Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) p.1189.
[253] D.F. Williams, A. McNamara and R.M. Turner, J Mater Sci Lett. 6 (1987) p.188.
[254] Neil Rushton and Trevor Rae., Biomaterials. 5 (1984) p.352.
[255] B. M. Wroblewski, P. D. Siney, P. A. Fleming., Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumato-
logiae cechoslovaca., 73 (2006) p.6.
[256] J. Mayer, “Gestricke aus Kohlenstoffasern fu €r biokompatible Verbundwerkstoffe,
dargestellt an einer homoelastischen Osteosyntheseplatte,” Ph.D thesis, ETH Zurich,
Switz., 1994.
[257] J. Mayer, and E. Wintermantel, in Composite Sheet Forming, edited by D. Bhattacharyya,

Thermal forming process for knitted fabric reinforced thermal plastics: new manufactur-
ing techniques for load-bearing anisotropic impants. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp.
403–440, 1997.
[258] H. Ramakrishna S, K. Fujihara and E. Yoshida, “Design and development of braided
carbon fiber reinforced polymer composites for dental posts and bone plate,” in 29th
FRP symposium, Japan Society for Materials Science, Japan, 2000, pp. 11–4.
[259] A.S. Kaddour, and M.J. Hinton, Challenging lessons from the second worldwide failure
exercise (WWFE-II): Predicting failure in polymer composite laminates under 3-D states
of stress. 19th International Conference on Composite Materials, Montreal (2013).
View publication stats

Impact Properties of Thermoplastic Composites

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact Properties of Thermoplastic Composites

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Impact properties of thermoplastic composites

Article in Textile Progress · July 2018

Ganesh Jogur Ashraf NAWAZ Khan

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Apurba Das Puneet Mahajan

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Design of ventilated helmets View project

Simulation of Precision Glass Molding Process View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN: 0040-5167 (Print) 1754-2278 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ttpr20

Impact properties of thermoplastic composites

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00405167.2018.1563369

Published online: 28 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 243

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Impact properties of thermoplastic composites

CONTACT R. Alagirusamy alagiru@gmail.com

i. delamination caused by mode II shear,

Amongst these, the delamination mode of failure predominates as it makes way to

Figure 1. Elastic-plastic behaviour of thermoplastic polymers [8].

2. Classification of impact velocity

2.1. Factors affecting the impact properties

i. Fibre type and properties

affects the impact performance in unidirectional, bidirectional and 3D preformed

2.1.2. Test parameters

semi-spherical impactors provide similar failure mechanisms and energy dissipation.

constant. Effect of these projectile parameters on the ballistic limit is presented in

ii. Specimen parameters

2.1.3. Fabrication parameters

Netherlands) composite laminates at 150 J impact energy using a blunt hemispherical

3. Thermoplastic resin systems

polymers some of which is attributable to their higher glass transition temperatures

3.1. Polypropylene (PP)

3.2. Polyethylene (PE)

3.3. Polyamides or nylons

i. nylon 6, (polycaprolactam, the polymamide formed from the C6 compound,

Figure 4. Chemical structure of polypropylene.

Figure 5. Chemical structure of polyethylene. Source: LitchemaV

Figure 6. Chemical structure of nylon 6.6. Source: Essentialchemicalindustry.org.

3.4. Thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)

3.5. Polyether sulphone (PES)

3.6. Polyetherimide (PEI)

3.7. Polyether ether ketone (PEEK)

Figure 8. Chemical structure of polyethersulphone. source: Omnexus.specialchem.com.

Figure 9. Chemical structure of polyetherimide. Source: Sigmaaldrich.com

Figure 10. Chemical structure of polyether ether ketone. Source: Achetron.com.

Figure 11. Chemical structure of polyphenylene sulphide.

3.8. Polyphenylene sulphide (PPS)

4. Classification of thermoplastic composites

4.2. Natural fibre based thermoplastic composites

combined with molten thermoplastic polymers which have melting temperatures

extension, bending and compression. It is very important to undertake impact testing

4.3. Fibre reinforced hybrid thermoplastic composites

Figure 13. Classification of thermoplastic composites.

4.3.1. Synthetic/synthetic fibre reinforced hybrid thermoplastic composites

panel. In addition to this, a laying sequence of 3D-A basalt/2D-P basalt/hybrid fabric

4.3.2. Synthetic/natural fibre reinforced hybrid thermoplastic composites

4.3.3. Natural/Natural fibre reinforced thermoplastic hybrid composites

25:75 by weight (CordenkaV is a regenerated cellulose fibre, Cordenka GmbH,

Obernburg Germany). The hybrid composite demonstrated better tensile strength