Natural Curaua Fiber-Reinforced Composites

in Multilayered Ballistic Armor

SERGIO NEVES MONTEIRO, LUIS HENRIQUE LEME LOURO,
WILLIAN TRINDADE, CARLOS NELSON ELIAS, CARLOS LUIZ FERREIRA,
EDUARDO DE SOUSA LIMA, RICARDO PONDÉ WEBER,
JOÃO CARLOS MIGUEZ SUAREZ, ANDRÉ BEN-HUR DA SILVA FIGUEIREDO,
WAGNER ANACLETO PINHEIRO, LUIS CARLOS DA SILVA,
and ÉDIO PEREIRA LIMA Jr.

The performance of a novel multilayered armor in which the commonly used plies of aramid
fabric layer were replaced by an equal thickness layer of distinct curaua fiber-reinforced com-
posites with epoxy or polyester matrices was assessed. The investigated armor, in addition to its
polymeric layer (aramid fabric or curaua composite), was also composed of a front Al2O3
ceramic tile and backed by an aluminum alloy sheet. Ballistic impact tests were performed with
actual 7.62 caliber ammunitions. Indentation in a clay witness, simulating human body behind
the back layer, attested the efficacy of the curaua-reinforced composite as an armor component.
The conventional aramid fabric display a similar indentation as the curaua/polyester composite
but was less efficient (deeper indentation) than the curaua/epoxy composite. This advantage is
shown to be significant, especially in favor of the lighter and cheaper epoxy composite rein-
forced with 30 vol pct of curaua fiber, as possible substitute for aramid fabric in multilayered
ballistic armor for individual protection. Scanning electron microscopy revealed the mechanism
associated with the curaua composite ballistic performance.

DOI: 10.1007/s11661-015-3032-z
 The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society and ASM International 2015

I. INTRODUCTION prevent its penetration into a clay witness backing the

ARMORED vests for human protection against
relatively heavy ammunition, such as the 7.62 9 51 mm
caliber bullet, require a light shielding system with high
impact absorption and resistance to penetration. A
monolithic layer, typically a steel plate,[1] cannot provide
the necessary protection unless it is comparatively
thicker, which compromises lightness and portability.
Multilayered armor systems (MAS) combining relatively
lighter materials are currently extensively investigated[2–4]
and used as portable vests. The MAS aims not only to
absorb the impact energy of a higher velocity projectile
but also to impede the penetration of fragments.[5]
Indeed, a portable armor vest for body protection should
be a low-cost and lightweight wearable garment system
with ballistic impact resistance.[6] The NIJ standards[7]
specify that body armor should stop a projectile and
SERGIO NEVES MONTEIRO, LUIS HENRIQUE LEME
LOURO, WILLIAN TRINDADE, CARLOS NELSON ELIAS,
CARLOS LUIZ FERREIRA, EDUARDO DE SOUSA LIMA,
RICARDO PONDÉ WEBER, JOÃO CARLOS MIGUEZ SUAREZ,
ANDRÉ BEN-HUR DA SILVA FIGUEIREDO, WAGNER
ANACLETO PINHEIRO, and ÉDIO PEREIRA LIMA, Jr., Profes-
sors, and LUIS CARLOS DA SILVA, Ph.D. Student, are with the
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Military
Institute of Engineering-IME, Praça General Tibúrcio, 80, Rio de
Janeiro, RJ 22290-270, Brazil. Contact e-mail: snevesmonteiro@gmail.
com
Manuscript submitted April 24, 2014.
armor to a depth not exceeding 1.73 in. (44 mm). Beyond
this depth, the penetration can potentially cause serious
blunt trauma to the armor wearer.[8]
MAS are usually composed of a harder front ceramic
tile with the ability to deform and erode/fracture the
projectile.[9–11] Owing to this ceramic frontal layer, a great
deal of the projectile energy is dissipated through dynamic
fragmentation involving nucleation, growth, and coales-
cence of microcracks.[12] It is known that once a high-
energy projectile strikes the front ceramic tile, a compres-
sive wave propagates and reaches the back of the tile.[13]
There, the wave could be partially reflected as a tensile
pulse, which normally breaks the ceramic tile regardless of
the interlayer material connecting the following layer.[4] A
second MAS layer backing the ceramic tile might be
chosen as a lighter composite material, which reduces
even more the impact wave by absorbing part of the
fragments (projectile or ceramic) kinetic energy. For this
second layer, glass fiber composites originally were
preferred[14,15] and carbon fiber composites were investi-
gated.[16,17] Today, however, aramid fabric such as
Kevlar (DuPont, Richmond, VA) and Twaron (Teijin
Aramid, Conyers, GA)[6,18] as well ultrahigh-molecular
polyethylene fiber such as Spectra (Spectra Energy
Corporation, Houston, TX) and Dyneema (DSM
Dyneema LLC, Stanley, NC)[19,20] reinforcement are
becoming the choices for lightweight body armor com-
posites. In particular, aramid fiber (Kevlar 49) is one of
the strongest, 3600 to 4100 MPa, and stiffest, 131 GPa,

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

fibrous materials with relatively thinner diameter 10 to
20 lm, and lower density, 1.4 g/cm3, than other synthetic
fibers.[21] Kevlar composites absorb part of the remaining
projectile or ceramic fragments energy by means of fabric
debonding from the matrix. Moreover, fabric stretching
in association with its flexural deformation and eventual
rupture has also been considered relevant absorption
mechanisms. In a recent communication,[22] it was
revealed that aramid fabric plies in a MAS can dissipate
20 times more of impact energy of a 7.62-mm caliber high-
velocity ammunition than this fabric alone. Massive
incrustation of fragments from the MAS front ceramic
onto the aramid fibers was found to contribute with
36 pct of the impact energy dissipation.
Without the front ceramic tile, which is the main
protection in a MAS,[11] a rather large number (20 to 50)
of aramid fabric plies would be required for protection
against a relatively high energy projectile.[6] Such a
monolithic composite has not been used as body armor
against heavy ammunition because bulk and stiffness
limits its comfort and mobility. A complete MAS system
could also include a third ductile metallic layer acting as
a final barrier. This restricts even more the penetration
of the projectile or its fragments beyond the maximum
standard depth of 44 mm, which causes serious injury to
a human body. In some cases, a spall shield is attached
on the front of the armor to avoid flight way ceramic
fragments.[11]
As the lighter component of a body armor vest, the
intermediate composite layer is intended not only to
provide comfort and mobility to the wearer but also to
improve the absorption efficiency of the projectile
impact. Indeed, after the projectile impact a compressive
wave is generated and travels through the several layers
of a MAS. At the interfaces between different materials
(ceramic/composite/metal), the propagating energy
pulse is reflected back as either a tensile or a compressive
wave, depending on the impedance of the two layers.[23]
In the case that a lower shock impedance composite
stands behind the interface, the proceeding compressive
wave will be comparatively lower in transmitted energy.
Because the shock impedance is directly related to the
material’s density, a greater ballistic impact energy
reduction should be provided by a comparatively lighter
composite backing the ceramic tile. Typical MAS
materials comprise an Al2O3 tile with density around
3.7 g/cm3, followed by an aramid fiber composite with
1.4 g/cm3 and backed by an aluminum sheet with 2.7
g/cm3. The substitution of an even lower-density fiber-
reinforced composite for the aramid fabric should, in
principle, be an alternative to improve the impact
absorption. A possible candidate might be a lighter
polymer composite reinforced with natural fiber. Nat-
ural fibers obtained from plants, also known as ligno-
cellulosic fibers, in addition to having a lower density
than most synthetic fibers like aramid, are less expensive
and regarded as environmentally friendly. Being renew-
able, degradable, recyclable, and neutral with respect
CO2 emissions, lignocellulosic fibers are less polluting.
Moreover, they are not as energy intensive as synthetic
fibers such as glass, carbon, and aramid fibers during
processing.[24] In recent years, polymer composites
reinforced with lignocellulosic fibers have been exten-
sively investigated[25–32] and applied in several engineer-
ing sectors, particularly the automotive industry.[33–35]
Among these fibers, those extracted from the leaves of
the curaua plant (Ananas erectifolius), native of the
Amazon region, was reported to have a density of
0.92 g/cm3, with an average diameter of 50 lm as well as
tensile strength of 1250 to 3000 MPa and Young’s
modulus of 27 to 80 GPa.[21,24] Polymer composites
reinforced with curaua fibers reach Charpy impact
energy over 150 J/m.[27]
Wambua et al.[36] were probably the first to conduct a
systematic investigation on the ballistic properties of
natural fiber-reinforced polymer composites. These were
a polypropylene matrix reinforced with 46 vol pct of
flax, hemp, or jute plain woven. Their composite plates
with 12.9 mm (flax and jute) as well as 6.9 mm (hemp)
were either faced or faced and backed (sandwiched) by
1.5- and 0.8-mm-thick mild steel sheets, respectively.
Chisel-nosed fragments, simulating projectiles, made of
alloy steel with 5.385 mm in diameter were used for the
ballistic impact tests. As one of the main investigation
objectives, Wambua et al.[36] reported that the ballistic
limit V50 increased nonlinearly with density and com-
posite thickness. In terms of energy absorption it was
concluded that hybrid (steel/composite) structures have
clear advantage over neat steel and plain composites.
The composite dominant failure modes included fiber
rupture, delamination, and shear cutout. Although
presenting relevant information on the ballistic impact
velocity and energy related to natural fiber composites,
it was not within the scope of Wambua et al.’s[36] work
to assess the performance of their system as armor for
human body protection.
In the current work, the ballistic performance of
armors composed of ceramic, aramid fabric, or curaua
fiber composite and aluminum layers was investigated in
terms of penetration (indentation) into clay witness
simulating a human body. Ballistic tests were conducted
in MASs with a front Al2O3 tile. As the following
intermediate layer, lighter curaua fiber-reinforced com-
posite plates, either epoxy or polyester matrices, were
compared (same thickness) with plain epoxy or polyester
plates and aramid fabric. The contribution of each
material was also assessed by individual ballistic tests.
The fracture aspects of the different types of interme-
diated layer materials were analyzed by scanning elec-
tron microscopy (SEM).
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Figure 1 illustrates schematically the side view of the
MAS arrangement used in this investigation. The front
layer (A), first to be hit by the projectile, was a 10-mm-
thick hexagonal tile with 31 mm of side dimension and
made of 4 wt pct Nb2O5 doped Al2O3 impact-resistant
ceramic. Ceramic tiles were fabricated by sintering
Al2O3 powder (0.3 lm of particle size) supplied by
Treibacher Schleifmittel as commercial purity mixed
with Nb2O5 powder (0.69 lm of particle size) supplied
by the Brazilian firm CBMM as 99 pct pro-analysis.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
Sintering was carried out at 1673 K (1400 C) for
3 hours under air.
The intermediate layer (B) with 10 mm in thickness
and square sides with 150 mm was one of the following:
(1) eight plies of aramid fabric, (2) 30 vol pct of
continuous and aligned curaua fiber-reinforced epoxy
(curaua/epoxy) or polyester (curaua/polyester) compos-
ite plates, or (3) plain epoxy or polyester plates. The
aramid fabric plies were supplied by the Brazilian firm
LFJ Blindagem Com. Serv. S.A. (Sao Paulo, Brazil).
The curaua fiber was supplied by the Brazilian co-
operative Amazon Paper (Belém do Pará, Brazil) in the
form of a bundle, as shown in Figure 2(a). Fibers were
separated from the bundle, dried at 333 K (60 C) in a
laboratory stove for 2 hours, and aligned with the
correct amount inside a steel mold. As for the initially
fluid resin, either diglycidyl ether of the bisphenol-A
(DGEBA) epoxy, mixed with a phr 13 stoichiometric
fraction of triethylene tetramine (TETA) as catalyst or
unsaturated orthophtalic polyester mixed with 0.5 pct
ethyl methyl ketone as hardener was poured onto the
mold. A pressure of 5 MPa was applied and the
composite plate cured for 24 hours. Figure 2(b) illus-
trates a plate of curaua composite. In a similar proce-
dure, plain epoxy and polyester plates were also
fabricated. The back layer (C) was a 150 9 150 mm
5052-H34 aluminum alloy sheet with 5 mm in thickness.
Fig. 1—Schematic diagram of the multilayered armor.
10 cm
(a)
Fig. 2—Bundle of curaua fibers (a) and plate of epoxy matrix composite (b) reinforced with 30 vol pct of aligned curaua fibers.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
These layers were bonded in the composite with
commercial Sikaflex glue (Sika Corporation, Lynd-
hurst, NJ).
In direct contact with the metallic back layer, a block
of clay witness simulated a human body protected by the
MAS. Modeling clay, treated by standard procedure
and compressed to avoid air bubbles, was commercially
supplied by Corfix (Porto Alegre, Brazil). Before each
round of ballistic tests, the clay was heat treated and its
density was checked as per the NIJ standard. After
ballistic testing, penetration in the clay duplicates the
plastic deformation imposed by the projectile impact on
the aluminum back layer. The corresponding indenta-
tion was measured with a rigid ruler and caliper with an
accuracy of 0.01 mm. To prevent ceramic fragments
from flying away, an aramid spall shield was attached to
the armor front.
Figure 3 illustrates the actual front view of an MAS.
In Figure 3(a), the armor is covered by a thin aramid
spall shield and mounted with screws as ballistic target.
The open central circular hole served as bull’s-eye for
projectile sight. In Figure 3(b), the uncovered ceramic
tile is glued to the curaua composite plate. The ballistic
tests were conducted at the Brazilian Army shooting
range facility, CAEX, in the Marambaia peninsula, Rio
de Janeiro. For each distinct type of MAS target, 10
tests were performed and the results analyzed using the
Weibull statistic method. All tests were carried out
according to the NIJ 0101.03 and NIJ 0101.04 standards
using 7.62 9 51 mm NATO military ammunition. The
9.7 g projectile, an ammunition bullet, was propelled
from a test gun barrel. Figure 4 shows, schematically,
the exploded view of the ballistic test setup. A dashed
straight line indicates the projectile trajectory. A steel
frame was used to position the target, which was held in
place by spring clips. The gun, located 15 m from the
target, was sighted on its center with a laser beam. The
exact velocity of the projectile at two moments: leaving
the gun and immediately before impacting the MAS was
measured by an optical barrier (Figure 4) and a model
5 cm
(b)
 3 cm 3 cm

(a) (b)

Fig. 3—Front view of the multilayered armor: (a) thin aramid spall shield and mounting screws to hold as target covering a (b) visible interme-
diate curaua composite layer behind the first ceramic layer. Open central hole is bull’s eye for projectile.

Fig. 4—Schematic exploded view of the ballistic experimental setup.

SL-52 OP Weibel fixed-head Doppler radar system.
Tests in which the target was totally perforated allowed
the residual velocity of the outcoming projectile or
fragments to be measured also. Fractured samples of
each MAS component after the ballistic test were
analyzed by SEM in either a model FSM 6460 LV
(JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) or a model QUANTA
FEG250 microscope (FEI Company, Hillsboro, OR)
operating with secondary electrons at 20 kV.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Multilayered Armor Ballistic Performance
All ballistic tests conducted in the MASs failed to
perforate the target. Consequently, the projectile was
always stopped and its kinetic energy was dissipated
inside the multilayered armor in association with an
indentation in the clay witness, as shown in Figure 5. To
evaluate the individual ballistic behavior of each distinct

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A


Fig. 5—Measurement of the indentation in the clay witness caused
by the projectile impact.
Table I. Average Depth of Indentation in the Clay Witness
Backing Different Multilayered Armors
Intermediate Material Layer Indentation (mm)
Aramid fiber plies 22.67 ± 2.79
Epoxy composite reinforced with 17.13 ± 1.57
30 vol pct curaua fiber
Plain epoxy plate 20.69 ± 1.65
Polyester composite reinforced with 24.31 ± 1.79
30 vol pct curaua fiber
Plain polyester plate 23.20 ± 2.58
intermediate layer, tests were performed separately in
the ceramic tile, aramid fabric plies, curaua composite
plate, and plain polymer plates. In these tests, contrary
to the MAS tests, the target was always perforated.
Therefore, besides the impact velocity, the projectile
residual velocity after perforation could also be mea-
sured. In the current work, in addition to aramid fabric
for comparison, only the individual ballistic results of
the better-performed curaua/epoxy composite will be
discussed.
Table I presents the average depth of indentation
measured in the clay witness (Figure 5) for the different
MAS targets investigated. In this table, the five distinct
materials tested as the MAS second layer showed
corresponding indentation depth below 44 mm and,
thus, all attend the NIJ[7] limit for serious blunt trauma.
It is worth noticing in Table I that the curaua/epoxy
composite displays the best ballistic performance asso-
ciated with an average 17.13 mm of indentation. This
corresponds to a lower blunt trauma than that of the
aramid fabric with 22.67 mm or that of the plain epoxy,
with 20.69 mm. In this table, one should note that,
despite the relatively large Weibull statistical deviations,
the aramid fabric indentation cannot reach that of the
curaua/epoxy composite. By contrast, the curaua/
polyester composite shows in Table I the deepest inden-
tation, 24.31 mm in confront with the other tested
materials. In this case, except for the curaua/epoxy
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
composite and plain epoxy, the interval of deviations
intercepts that of the aramid fabric and reveals a similar
ballistic performance.
The results in Table I also indicate that the curaua/
epoxy composite, as a MAS second layer, has a ballistic
performance unmatched by the other investigated mate-
rials, including the aramid fabric. This might seem
surprising if one remembers that the maximum values
for the tensile strength, 3000 MPa, and Young’s mod-
ulus, 80 GPa, found for the curaua fiber[21] are signif-
icantly lower than those of 4100 MPa and 131 GPa,
respectively, reported for the aramid fiber.[37] Moreover,
both the epoxy and polyester matrices display even
lower strength, 87 to 90 MPa and modulus 2.41 to
4.41 GPa.[37] The reason for this apparent contradiction
is that strength and stiffness are not the predominating
factors for ballistic performance of a MAS second layer.
Indeed, based on the aforementioned recent communi-
cation,[22] a second most important function is to
capture the fragments resulting from both the front
ceramics shatter and the projectile destruction after
ballistic impact. The results in Table I suggest that in
comparison with aramid fabric, the curaua composite
might have a more effective (epoxy matrix) or at least
similar (polyester matrix) capacity to collect these
fragments. The proposed capture of fragments by
mechanical incrustation and van der Walls holding
forces on the fiber surface as well as short-living surface
static charges[22] probably holds equally for both aramid
and curaua fibers. In a brittle matrix, such as the epoxy,
the additional energy absorbed during fracture would
provide the edge in performance (Table I) of the curaua/
epoxy composite over the aramid fabric.
B. Practical Advantages of Curaua Composites
The previous section has just shown that the ballistic
performance of a curaua composite as a MAS second
layer is superior (epoxy) or similar (polyester) to that of
aramid fabric. The reader may question whether, in
practice for use in armor vest, it would be advantageous
to replace the traditional aramid fabric by a curaua
composite. The answer depends on several factors that
will be discussed briefly.
An initial doubt concerns the supply of curaua fibers
because the plant is cultivated today only in the Brazilian
Amazon region. As one of the strongest lignocellulosic
fibers,[21,24,27] the curaua fiber has already gained atten-
tion from the Brazilian market. Its composites have been
used industrially in automobile components since
2004.[34,38] Brazilian trade companies[39] reported both
domestic and international orders for commercial lots of
curaua fibers. The worldwide environmental interest for
natural material, in particular the support by the Euro-
pean legislation on automobile components,[40] might
favor the international market for curaua fiber as now
happens for hemp, jute, flax, sisal, coir, and other natural
fibers. Today, the global production of natural fibers is
estimated to be more than 30 million tons, whereas their
use (except wood and cotton) in engineering-reinforced
polymers is approximately 45,000 tons.[31]
 Another point of doubt is the durability of a curaua epoxy, its weather resistance is associated with that
composite in confrontation with aramid fabric. In fact, of the polymeric matrix. Epoxy and polyester are
the curaua fiber alone is affected by moisture, temper- commercially considered nondegradable polymers
ature, and bacteria/fungi. However, if well embedded in under atmospheric conditions up to 533 K (260 C).[41]

Table II. Evaluation of Weight and Cost of the Different Multilayered Armors

Volume Density Weight Price per Component Cost

Armor Component (cm3) (g/cm3) (kgf) kg (U.S. Dollars) (U.S. Dollars)
Al2O3 ceramic tile 337.5 3.72 1.256 33.00 41.43
Aramid fabric plies 225 1.44 0.324 63.60 20.61
Curaua composite plate 225 0.98 0.221 fiber 0.44 (30 pct) 0.46
epoxy 2.80 (70 pct)
5052-H34 aluminum sheet 112.5 2.70 0.304 8.50 2.58
Total weight with aramid fabric (kgf) 1.884 total cost with aramid fabric 64.62
Total weight with curaua composite (kgf) 1.781 total cost with curaua composite 44.47
Percentage decrease 5.50 percentage decrease 31.2

Fig. 6—Fracture surface of a particle from the Al2O3 after the ballistic test: (a) intercrystalline cracks, (b) Nb-rich gray glassy phase, and (c) its
EDS.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

Moreover, they are hydrophobic and, if properly processed
as composite matrix, will not allow moisture to penetrate
and reach the hydrophilic curaua fiber. Curaua/epoxy
composites begin thermal degradation above 473 K
(200 C).[42] By contrast, based on insurance clauses for
the Brazilian Army armor vests, the supplier of the aramid
fabric indicates a commercial time durability of 5 years.[43]
The maker of aramid fabric specifies stability under
atmospheric conditions and thermal decomposition at
760 K (487 C).[44] One could then conclude that, up to
473 K (200 C), curaua/epoxy composite would have
similar weather resistance and might even last longer than
aramid fabric in personal MAS vests.
Relevant points for practical use of MAS are the cost
and weight. The following discussion involves only data
for curaua/epoxy composite, best ballistic performance
in Table I, and aramid fabric. Table II presents the basic
parameters allowing a calculation of the weight and cost
of each different MAS investigated. The values for the
parameters used in this table were given by the suppliers
or obtained from the literature.[21,37] Although the
actual Al2O3 ceramic used in the armor was a smaller
hexagonal tile (Figure 3(a)), its calculated face area was
considered covering the whole 15 9 15 cm of the target.
This corresponds to a real situation.
In Table II, it should be noticed that the MAS with
curaua composite represents more than 5 pct of decrease
in total weight of the armor. In addition, it also
corresponds to more than 31 pct of decrease in total
cost. For practical purposes, the superior ballistic
performance of the curaua/epoxy composite, together
with a market potential as well as long-term weather
resistance in association with 5 pct lightness and 31 pct
economical advantages over the aramid fiber, constitute
a promising perspective for its application in personal
MAS armor vests. These comments are restricted to
7.62 9 51 mm NATO ammunition used in the current
ballistic tests.
Fig. 7—Damaged aramid fabric by fragments (projectile or ceramic) after the ballistic impact: (a) lower magnification and (b) higher magnifica-
tion.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
C. Ballistic Penetration
The ballistic performance of the MASs investigated
was a consequence of the energy absorption by the
different layers. Both the first Al2O3 ceramic layer as
well as the second layer, either aramid or composite
(Figure 1), were perforated by the projectile. However, a
significant amount of energy was absorbed by these first
and second MAS layers. After crossing the second layer,
fragments (projectile or ceramic) were only able to cause
a relatively small plastic deformation in the aluminum
sheet back layer, causing the indentation in the clay
witness (Figure 5).
The perforation of the first ceramic layer, which is
responsible for most of the energy dissipation,[3,11] was
associated with shattering of the brittle ceramic tile. To
investigate its fracture, Al2O3 particles collected after the
tests were observed by SEM after gold sputtering to
provide an electrical conducting coating. Figure 6 shows
the expected brittle fracture surface of a collected Al2O3
particle. As indicated by Medvedovski,[11] a 7.62 pro-
jectile causes different kinds of cracks to be formed
during the impact. This complex pattern of propagating
cracks associated with intercrystalline fracture is ob-
served in Figure 6(a). Moreover, smooth areas with
branch cracks (Figure 6(b)) were found by energy-
dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (Figure 6(c)) to contain
a significant amount of niobium, probably in a glassy
phase.
Figure 7 shows the damage region of aramid fabric
plies after penetration by fragments (projectile/ceramic)
resulting from the initial impact suffered by the front
Al2O3 ceramic tile. The general features (Figure 7(a))
corroborate evidences of fabric yarn pullout and fiber
rupture, reported by Lee et al.,[6] as well as recently
reported[22] incrustation of fragments. With higher
magnification, Figure 7(b) shows that bright white
particles of Al2O3 are firmly attached to the aramid
fibers. This confirms that the aramid fabric contributes
in the energy dissipation by stopping ceramic fragments.
Small metallic particles from the projectile were also
found entangled in the aramid fibers and so contributing
to dissipate the energy.
Figure 8 shows the fracture region of a curaua/epoxy
composite after penetration by fragments (projectile/
ceramic) resulting from the initial impact suffered by the
front Al2O3 ceramic tile. In this figure, the main feature
is the separation of curaua fibers in thinner fibrils, which
is a characteristic of its mechanical rupture.[24] This
contributes significantly to absorb the impact energy.
Moreover, the fracture of the brittle epoxy matrix,
pointed by an arrow, is another source of energy
dissipation. Similar to what was found in the damaged
aramid fabric (Figure 7), the ballistic penetration of
fragments also impregnated the curaua composite frac-
ture by bright and white particles in Figure 8.
Figure 9 shows the fracture of a plain epoxy after
penetration by the fragments (projectile/ceramic) result-
ing from the initial impact suffered by the front Al2O3
Fig. 8—Fracture region of a curaua/epoxy composite caused by
fragments (projectile/ceramic) after the ballistic impact.
Fig. 9—Fracture region of a plain epoxy after the ballistic impact.
ceramic tile. The apparent main mechanism for dissi-
pating energy in this figure is the nucleation and
propagation of cracks following a typical ‘‘river pat-
tern.’’ Only few fragments appear to be attached onto
the surface. Consequently, the plain epoxy rupture is not
as efficient in reducing the energy or stopping fragments
from the initial ballistic impact. This explains the higher
indentation (Table I) than with aramid fabric or curaua/
epoxy composite.
D. Individual Components Ballistic Performance
For practical interest, the individual ballistic tests
were restricted to the aramid fabric and the curaua/
epoxy composite, which presented the best performance
as a second MAS layer in Table I. The contribution
of each MAS component was assessed, from its
own ballistic tests using the same ammunition, 7.62 9
51 mm NATO, and methodology described in Section II.
The average impact velocity of 846 m/s corresponds to a
projectile kinetic energy of 3471 J. Individual targets
with same thickness of the corresponding MAS compo-
nent layers, indicated in Figure 1, for Al2O3 ceramic tile,
aramid fabric, and curaua/epoxy composite plate were
tested in 10 samples of each. All targets were completed
perforated after these individual tests. Not only the
projectile impact velocity but also the residual velocity
of the fragments passing through the target were
measured by the Doppler radar system.
Figure 10 illustrates a typical radar spectrum ob-
tained from an Al2O3 ceramic target. In this figure, one
should note that an initial small horizontal segment
indicates an impact velocity (vi) around 850 m/s. A
sudden drop at about 0.015 second upon impact is
associated with the attenuation of the velocity of
outcoming fragments. For the ceramic (Figure 10), the
corresponding radar spectrum displays more than one
attenuation curve indicating the number of fragments
(projectile/ceramic) that left the target. A second degree
polynomial adjustment of these curves permitted to
determine the residual velocity (vr) of the fragments by
regression to the point of discontinuous drop, around
600 m/s in Figure 10. The kinetic energy DEd, dissipated
inside the target, could then be estimated by the
equation:
1

DEd ¼ m v2i  v2r ½1
2
Similar radar spectrum analyses were performed for
aramid fabric and curaua/epoxy composite. In these
cases, the residual velocities were found to be relatively
closer to the corresponding impact velocities. Figure 11
exemplifies the experimental points obtained from the
radar spectrum of a curaua/epoxy composite and the
adjusted continuous polynomial curve. In this figure, the
regression to the discontinuous drop provides a residual
velocity, around 830 m/s. Analogous graphs were
obtained for the aramid fabric. Similar to the curaua/
epoxy composite (Figure 11), just one attenuation curve
was found for the aramid fabric.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
Fig. 10—Radar spectrum for the ballistic test of an Al2O3 ceramic target.

Fig. 11—Velocity attenuation experimental points and adjusted curve for the ballistic test of a curaua/epoxy composite.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

 Table III. Impact and Residual Velocities Together with Internally Dissipated Energy in Individually Ballistic Tested MAS
Components

Reduction of Impact
MAS Component vi (m/s) vr (m/s) Velocity (Pct) DEd (J) Absorbed Impact Energy (Pct)
Al2O3 ceramic 848 ± 6 567 ± 43 33 1920 ± 223 55.3
Aramid fabric 848 ± 6 841 ± 7 <1 58 ± 29 1.7
Curaua/epoxy composite 848 ± 6 835 ± 6 2 106 ± 11 3.1

Table III presents the impact and residual velocities and cost advantages of the curaua/epoxy composite add
as well as the internally dissipated energy (Eq. [1]), from to its promising practical use in MAS.
ballistic tests of individual MAS components. In this
table, it is important to note the much greater reduction
in the impact velocity for the Al2O3 ceramic. Indeed, the V. CONCLUSIONS
ceramic residual velocity after perforation corresponds
to a reduction in impact velocity of approximately
33 pct. By contrast, this reduction is less than 3 pct for
1. A MAS, in which the conventional aramid fabric
the other components. The internally dissipated energy
plies following a front Al2O3 ceramic, was replaced
in the ceramic of 1920 J in Table III is the highest,
by an epoxy or polyester matrix composite rein-
whereas as an expected result, the aramid fabric
forced with curaua fiber attended the NIJ trauma
dissipates the lowest amount of energy (58 J). This
limit after ballistic tests with a high-velocity
corroborates the result in Table I, where the aramid
7.62 9 51 mm ammunition.
fabric presents a lower ballistic performance (deeper
2. The ballistic performance of epoxy matrix compos-
indentation) than the curaua/epoxy composite.
ite reinforced with 30 vol pct of curaua fiber
A possible explanation for the significantly lower
(curaua/epoxy composite) was found, by the inden-
individual absorption energy of the aramid fabric
tation in a clay witness simulating a human body,
(Table III) might be associated with the type of ammu-
to be better than that of the aramid fabric as sec-
nition. A high-energy sharp-pointed 7.62 mm caliber
ond MAS layer.
bullet striking an aramid fabric probably penetrates
3. The ballistic performance of the polyester matrix
easily in between the weaves by simply separating or
composite reinforced with 30 vol pct of curaua
pulling out the yarns. This is certainly not the case of
fiber, within the statistic precision, was found to be
energy-reduced blunt fragments resulting from an
similar to that of the aramid fabric.
eroded and broken bullet after striking the front ceramic
4. Despite significantly higher strength and stiffness of
layer in an MAS. In other words, individually, an
the aramid fibers, its capacity to capture fragments
aramid fabric is not an effective barrier to a 7.62 mm
resulting from the shattering of the front MAS
caliber bullet compared with a curaua/epoxy composite,
ceramic layers is worse than or similar to that of
in which the brittle matrix can dissipate more energy
the curaua composites.
(Table III) through crack nucleation and propagation
5. In addition to fragment capture mechanism, which
(Figure 9).
also occurs in the aramid fabric, the curaua com-
posite contributes to dissipate the fragments energy
through crack nucleation and propagation in the
IV. FINAL REMARKS epoxy matrix.
6. Individual ballistic tests of ceramic, aramid fabric
The results from MAS (Table I) and individual
and curaua epoxy composite revealed that the Al2O3
(Table III) ballistic tests indicated that curaua/epoxy
ceramic tile dissipates around 55 pct of the 7.62
composite has a more efficient power to absorb the
bullet impact energy, while the curaua/epoxy com-
impact energy either from the front MAS ceramic
posite dissipates 3 pct and aramid fabric 1.7 pct. As
fragments or from direct penetration of a high-velocity
expected by the ballistic performance, the aramid
7.62 mm bullet. By backing a front ceramic, which not
fabric individually presented the lowest energy dissi-
only reduces the velocity (33 pct) but also dissipates
pation. This might be attributed to the easy penetra-
most of the impact energy (55 pct), both aramid fabric
tion of the sharp-pointed bullet in between the yarns
and curaua/epoxy composite become more effective
of the fabric weave.
than each product individually. The capture of frag-
ments in an MAS is an efficient energy-absorption
mechanism. Individually, on the other hand, the bullet
can easily pass through the fibers and only 1.7 pct
(aramid fabric) or 3.1 pct (curaua/epoxy composite) of ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
the impact energy is absorbed. In either MAS individual
case, additional energy absorbed by shattering the brittle The authors acknowledge the support to this investi-
epoxy matrix provides a better ballistic performance of gation by the Brazilian agencies CNPq, CAPES, and
the curaua composite than the aramid fabric. Lightness FAPERJ.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

 REFERENCES
1. T. Borvik, M. Langseth, O.S. Hopperstad, and K.A. Malo: Int. J.
Impact Eng., 1999, vol. 22, pp. 855–85.
2. S. Abrate: Ballistic Impact on Composite Structures, 1st ed.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998, pp. 215–20.
3. E. Medvedovski: Adv. Appl. Ceram., 2006, vol. 105, pp. 241
45.
4. A. Tasdemirci, G. Tunusoglu, and M. Guden: Int. J. Impact Eng.,
2012, vol. 44, pp. 1–9.
5. A.S. Brown: High Perform. Compos., 2003, March, pp. 23–26.
6. Y.S. Lee, E.D. Wetzel, and N.J. Wagner: J. Mater. Sci., 2003,
vol. 38, pp. 2825–33.
7. NIJ Standard 0101.06: Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body
Armor, 2008.
8. S. Bazhenov: J. Mater. Sci., 1997, vol. 32, pp. 4167–73.
9. C.E. Anderson and B.L. Morris: Int. J. Impact Eng., 1992, vol. 12,
pp. 167–87.
10. M.M. Shokrieh and G.H. Javadpour: Compos. Struct., 2008,
vol. 82, pp. 269–76.
11. E. Medvedovski: Ceram. Int., 2010, vol. 36, pp. 2103–15, 2117–27.
12. L.H.L. Louro and M.A. Meyers: J. Mater. Sci., 1989, vol. 24,
pp. 2516–32.
13. S. Abrate: J. Phys. IV, 2003, vol. 110, pp. 657–62.
14. S.C. Chou, E. De Luca, J. Pritti, and W. Betheney: Compos. Sci.
Technol., 1998, vol. 58, pp. 1453–61.
15. J.R.M. d’Almeida, L.M. Nunes, and S. Paciornik: Compos. Sci.
Technol., 2004, vol. 64, pp. 945–54.
16. U.K. Vaidya, C. Ulven, and M.V. Hosur: Compos. Struct., 2003,
vol. 61, pp. 143–50.
17. M.V. Hosur, U.K. Vaidya, C. Ulven, and S. Jeelani: Compos.
Struct., 2004, vol. 64, pp. 455–66.
18. M.J.N. Jacobs and J.L.J. Van Dingenen: J. Mater. Sci., 2001,
vol. 36, pp. 3137–42.
19. B.L. Lee, J.W. Song, and J.E. Ward: J. Compos. Mater., 1994,
vol. 28, pp. 1202–26.
20. P.J. Hine, R.A. Duckett, S.S. Morye, D.J. Carr, and I.M. Ward:
Compos. Sci. Technol., 2000, vol. 60, pp. 2631–42.
21. K.G. Satyanarayana, J.L. Guimarães, and F. Wypych: Compos. A,
2007, vol. 38, pp. 1694–1700.
22. S.N. Monteiro, E.P. Lima, Jr, L.H.L. Louro, L.C. Silva, and J.W.
Drelich: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 2015, vol. 46A, pp. 37–40.
23. M.A. Meyers: Dynamic Behavior of Materials, Wiley, New York,
NY, 1994, pp. 183–201.
24. S.N. Monteiro, F.P.D. Lopes, A.P. Barbosa, A.B. Bavitori, I.L.A.
Silva, and L.L. Costa: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 2011, vol. 42A,
pp. 2963–74.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
25. M.J. John and S. Thomas: Carbohydr. Polym., 2008, vol. 71,
pp. 174–78.
26. K.G. Satyanarayana, G.G.C. Arizaga, and F. Wypych: Progr.
Polym. Sci., 2009, vol. 34, pp. 982–1021.
27. S.N. Monteiro, F.P.D. Lopes, A.S. Ferreira, and D.C.O.
Nascimento: JOM, 2009, vol. 61, pp. 17–22.
28. J. Summerscales, N. Dissanayake, A.S. Virk, and W. Hall: Com-
pos. A, 2010, vol. 41, pp. 1329–44.
29. E. Zini and M. Scendola: Polym. Compos., 2011, vol. 32, pp. 1905–
15.
30. O. Faruk, A.K. Bledzki, H.P. Fink, and M. Sain: Progr. Polym.
Sci., 2012, vol. 37, pp. 1555–96.
31. D.U. Shah: J. Mater. Sci., 2013, vol. 48, pp. 6083–6107.
32. V.K. Thakur, M.K. Thakur, and R.K. Gupta: Int. J. Polym. Anal.
Charact., 2014, vol. 19, pp. 256–71.
33. J. Holbery and D. Houston: JOM, 2006, vol. 58, pp. 80–86.
34. R. Zah, R. Hischier, A.L. Leal, and I. Brown: J. Clean. Prod.,
2007, vol. 15, pp. 1032–40.
35. J. Njuguna, P. Wambua, K. Pielichowski, and K. Kayvantash: in
Cellulose Fibers: Bio-and Nano-Polymer Composites, S. Kalia, B.S.
Kaith, and I. Kaurs, eds., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2011, pp. 661–
700.
36. P. Wambua, B. Vangrimde, S. Lomov, and I. Verpoest: Compos.
Struct., 2007, vol. 77, pp. 232–40.
37. W.D. Callister, Jr and D.G. Rethwish: Materials Science and
Engineering—An Introduction, 8th ed., Wiley, New York, NY,
2010.
38. Volkswagen Apresenta Conceito ‘‘Think Blue.’’ na Rio+20, June
13, 2012, http://www.vwbr.com.br/ImprensaVW/Release.aspx?
id=0a705252-d2c4-4b2a-9ed4-5e8b9d357ec1 (in Portuguese).
39. Sisalsul Fibras Naturals, Homepage, http://www.sisalsul.com.br
(in Portuguese).
40. European Commission: Directive 2000-53/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of September 18, 2000 on end-of-
life vehicles. Union OJOTE, 2000, p. 9.
41. Dow Epoxy-Thermal Decomposition, http://dowac.custhelp.com/
app/answers/detail/a_id/11085/~/dow-epoxy—thermal-decomposition,
2015.
42. A.S. Ferreira: D.Sc. Thesis, State University of Northern Rio de
Janeiro Darcy Ribeiro, Brazil, 2009.
43. Blindagem de Veı́culo, Manutenção e Validade, http://
socyalcorretoradeseguros.com.br/blog/?p=524 (in Portuguese)
2014.
44. DuPont, Technical Guide: Kevlar Aramid Fiber, DuPont, Rich-
mond, VA, http://www.dupont.com/content/dam/dupont/products-
and-services/fabrics-fibers-and-nonwovens/fibers/documents/Kevlar_
Technical_Guide.pdf.