JOURNAL OF

COMPOSITE
Article M AT E R I A L S
Journal of Composite Materials
46(22) 2835–2841
! The Author(s) 2012
Charpy impact behavior of plain weave S-2 Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
glass/HDPE thermoplastic composites DOI: 10.1177/0021998311433059
jcm.sagepub.com

Ömer Faruk Erkendirci

Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the impact behavior of plain weave (PW) S-2 glass fiber reinforced high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) thermoplastic composites with different layers and thicknesses. The amount of impact toughness
and absorbed energy of the composite materials during fracture as an impact modifier has been studied. Impact tests
were performed with a Charpy impact tester on specimens with V-notches. The values of impact toughness and impact
energy, which were obtained from each group of six specimens, were shown to depend on number of layers, volume
fraction, and hence on processing.

Keywords
Charpy impact test, glass fiber, impact toughness, polymer matrix composites, xpolyethylene

Introduction
In the past few decades, research and engineering inter-
ests have been shifting from monolithic materials to
fiber-reinforced polymeric materials. These composite
materials (notably aramid, carbon, and glass fiber rein-
forced plastics) now dominate the aerospace, leisure,
automotive, construction, and sporting industries.
Glass fibers are the most widely used to reinforce plas-
tics due to their low cost (compared to aramid and
carbon) and fairly good mechanical properties.
Fracture toughness and impact resistance are among
the most important properties of polymers and their
modified systems.1,2 Compared with traditional
metals, plastics, and thermoset composites, fiber-rein-
forced thermoplastic composites are lighter, tougher,
stiffer, more sustainable, and can be produced in high
volumes. Especially thermoplastic composites have infi-
nite shelf life, can be recycled, and perform better in
every multi-impact, highly demanding environment.
The main objective in the development of modified
thermoplastics is always to achieve processable material
of high stiffness combined with sufficient impact resis-
tance.3 The qualitative results of the impact test can be
used to determine the ductility of a material.4
Determination of fracture characteristics is therefore
of crucial importance. Thus, appropriate methods and
conditions should be chosen to yield meaningful data,
reflecting the structure and properties of the material.5
If the material breaks on a flat plane, the fracture is
characterized as brittle, whereas a ductile failure is
manifested by material failure with jagged edges or
shear lips. Usually a material does not break in just
one way or the other, and thus comparing the jagged
to flat surface areas of the fracture will give an estimate
of the percentage of ductile and brittle fracture.6
Fu et al.7 investigated fracture resistance of short-
glass-fiber-reinforced and short-carbon-fiber-reinforced
polypropylene under Charpy impact loading and its
dependence on processing. They reported that the
notched Charpy impact energy of composites increases
with an increase in glass fiber volume fraction and a
decrease of the carbon fiber volume fraction. It has
been shown that the composite impact energy depends
on the fiber length that has been shown previously to
depend on the processing conditions. Wambua et al.8
processed natural fiber reinforced polypropylene com-
posites (sisal, kenaf, hemp, jute, and coir) by compres-
sion molding using a film stacking method. They tested
and compared the mechanical properties of the
Gaziantep University, Gaziantep Technical College, Gaziantep, Turkey
Corresponding author:
Ömer Faruk Erkendirci, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep Technical
College, Gaziantep, Turkey
Email: erkendirci@gantep.edu.tr

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on November 2, 2012

2836
different natural fiber composites. Also, they suggested
that natural fiber composites have a potential to replace
glass in many applications that do not require very high
load-bearing capabilities. Tai et al.9 investigated the
impact fracture behavior for the PP/PE blends. The
impact testing method employed in their study included
the conventional and instrumented Izod impact tests,
the instrumented Charpy impact test, and the instru-
mented drop weight plate impact test (IDWPIT). The
results of their study suggested that the type of impact
test employed was playing an important role in the
impact fracture behavior of the PP/PE blends.
Nuoping et al.10 studied impact properties of stitched
glass/polypropylene woven composites at different tem-
peratures. They reached remarkable improvements at
low temperature (20 C) of stitched composites.
Also, they reported stitching structures such as stitch
row orientation and stitch row spacing play an impor-
tant role in changing the impact behavior.
Recently there has been a growing interest in the use
of thermoplastic resins as matrix materials instead of
thermosetting matrix. Besides the advantages such as
low-cost manufacturing and the possibility of recycling
raw material, thermoplastic composites have advan-
tages with respect to good damage tolerance and
impact toughness.11 In another study, Erkendirci and
Avci12 investigated the effect of inclined cracks on the
fatigue and fracture behavior of woven steel/reinforced
polyethylene composite. Thomason et al.13 found a
direct relationship between tensile strength and
Charpy impact strength of random in-plane glass
fiber-reinforced PP laminates. Based on their observa-
tions they developed a fiber strain energy model. Also,
several studies14,15 have been conducted in the last
decade to characterize the dynamic properties of tradi-
tional structural composite laminates, especially those
of the carbon epoxy system, using instrumented Charpy
testing.
However, it has not been reported up to now the
impact behavior of fiber reinforced HDPE thermoplas-
tic composites, particularly under composite systems
with different layers and thicknesses. Impact energy
and impact behavior of V-notched thermoplastic com-
posite specimens have also rarely been investigated. In
order to provide more common and reliable usage of
high density polyethylene, it is necessary to develop the
mechanical properties by reinforcing with a fiber.
1L: [HDPE /S2/HDPE] 2L: [HDPE/S2/HDPE/S2/HDPE]
Figure 1. A schematic view of the laminated composite material panels with different layers.
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on November 2, 2012
Journal of Composite Materials 46(22)
In this study, laminated thermoplastic composite
materials with different layers and thicknesses are pro-
duced, using plane weave (PW) S-2 glass as fiber and
HDPE as matrix, by the compression hot molding
method and their mechanical properties are character-
ized and developing its impact properties are aimed.
To this end, impact behavior of PW S-2 glass/HDPE
thermoplastic composite material, by Charpy
V-notched impact test with the ISO 179-92 standard
is investigated and how the PW S-2 glass/HDPE ther-
moplastic composite material reacts to the impact was
gathered to evaluate the type of failure and the dynamic
response of the composite material.
Specimen preparations and
experimental procedure
Materials
The thermoplastic composite material consists of the
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) matrix and plain
weave S2 glass fiber with a thickness of 0.15-mm and
sieve gap of 0.20-mm produced by a hot compression
molding method. For matrix materials, the thermoplas-
tic granules are put in the molds and then the temper-
ature is increased to 180 C, by using electrical
resistance without any pressure, and held constant for
5 min. Then the material is held under 2.5-MPa pres-
sure at the same temperature for an additional 5 min.
The temperature is then reduced to 30 C under 15-MPa
pressure in 3-min and the HDPE layer is finished.
Later, the glass fibers are put in between two HDPE
layers and then the composite material is produced
under similar production conditions. Also, with each
additional fiber layer, holding time is increased by
3-min under 2.5-MPa pressure. Four types of
Table 1. Properties of thermoplastic composite panels
Number Thickness Fiber volume
of layers (mm) fracture (Vf)
1 2.25 0.09
2 3.50 0.14
3 4.75 0.18
4 6.00 0.23
3L: [HDPE /S2/HDPE/S2/HDPE/S2/HDPE] 4L: [HDPE /S2/HDPE/S2/HDPE/S2/HDPE/S2/HDPE]
Erkendirci 2837

Figure 2. Optical stereo microscope images of the composite laminates.

Figure 3. Charpy V-notch impact specimens: (a) schematic drawing, (b) top view photographs, (c) front view photographs.

(a) (b)

Test specimen Frame

Figure 4. Köger 3/70 Charpy impact tester: (a) the calibrated dial on the impact tester, (b) test specimen on the impact tester frame.

composite panels are produced with different stacking
sequences as shown on Figure 1. The panels of various
layer counts, that is, 1-layers (1 L), 2 L, 3 L, and 4 L.
Their thicknesses and fiber volume fractions (Vf), which
are determined by the resin burn-off method according
to ASTM D-2584, are given in Table 1. The quality of
the composite material is checked visually by color and
void content.
Besides, wet-out or impregnation of the composite
material as can be shown in Figure 2, which is a com-
monly used term in composite manufacturing to
describe the resin impregnation of structural fiber
reinforcement, is very good and there are no air bubbles
or voids in a PW S-2 glass/HDPE thermoplastic com-
posite laminate. These images obtained from surface of
the composite material by using the optical stereo
microscope.
Specimen preparation
Impact test specimens were obtained from the S-2 glass/
HDPE thermoplastic composite laminates with 1 L,
2 L, 3 L, and 4 L. These rectangular specimens are of
size 80 mm  10 mm with thickness 2.25 mm, 3.5 mm,

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on November 2, 2012

2838 Journal of Composite Materials 46(22)

Table 2. Charpy impact test results

Number Energy Impact toughness

of layers (E, J) (acU, kJ/m2)

1L 2.55 113.3
2L 4.23 120.9
3L 6.16 129.7
4L 9.68 161.3

Figure 5. Schematic view of the Charpy impact energy

measurement.

(a) 12 (b) 180

170

Impact Toughness, acU,, kJ/m .

Absorbed Impact Energy , E, J.

2
10
160

8 150

140
6
130

4 120

110
2
100
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Fiber Volume Fraction, Vf.
Fiber Volume Fraction, Vf.

Figure 6. Impact energy and impact toughness curves for 1 L, 2 L, 3 L, and 4 L composite laminates: (a) impact energy-fiber volume
fraction (Vf), (b) impact toughness-fiber volume fraction Vf.

4.75 mm, and 6 mm, respectively. For each composi- can easily be determined from the pendulum heights
tion, a V-notch of 45  1 and a root radius of before releasing the pendulum and striker assembly
0.25  0.05 mm are made by sawing with a razor and after the fracture when the pendulum swings to
blade for each layer’s six impact specimens. The geom- the maximum height opposite the initial release posi-
etry of the Charpy V-notch impact specimens are illus- tion. The absorbed impact energy, or energy registered
trated schematically in Figure 3(a), according to the in the test, can be read directly from the calibrated dial
recommendation of ISO 179-92. Top view and front on the impact tester. Photographs of the calibrated
view photographs of the specimens are shown in dial and test specimen on the frame can be shown in
Figure 3(b) and (c). Figure 4(a) and (b).
After the test, a method is required for calculating
the impact toughness. One method of expressing impact
Charpy impact tests
toughness for a plastic or a composite is in terms of the
Notched Charpy tests are carried out following the IS0 formulas:
179/92 standard using a 15 J hammer. Charpy impact
tests are conducted on a Köger 3/70 Charpy impact
E ¼ Ea  Eb ð1Þ
tester as shown in Figure 4 using the specimens with
a V-notch (see Figure 3). The tests are carried out at
room temperature. The average values of notched acU ¼ E=ðbhÞ ð2Þ
Charpy impact energy are obtained from each group
of six specimens. Also in conventional Charpy where acU is the impact toughness, E is the energy reg-
V-notch impact testing, the total energy required to istered in the test, Ea and Eb are potential energy before
fracture the specimen is determined from the difference and after impact (see Figure 5), b and h are width and
in potential energy before and after the test. This energy thickness of the test specimen, respectively.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on November 2, 2012

Erkendirci
Figure 7. Charpy impact damage of S-2 glass/HDPE composite material: (a) top view photographs, (b) front view photographs.
Figure 8. SEM images at cross section after the impact test: (a) fiber fracture, (b) matrix fracture.
Results and discussion
To determine the impact energy and impact toughness
of the composite material, six tests are carried out for
each laminate (1 L, 2 L, 3 L, and 4 L) of the composite
material. Afterwards, obtained results are analyzed and
discussed in this section elaborately. As expected,
thicker specimens have an overall higher impact
energy and impact toughness than other ones. Charpy
impact test results can be shown in Table 2. The thicker
specimens show better impact properties at room tem-
perature conditions than thinner specimens, according
to these results.
Impact energy, E, which is read from the calibrated
dial on the impact tester, is presented as a function of
fiber volume fracture (Vf), in Figure 6(a). Also impact
toughness (acU), which is calculated using Equation (2),
by the material under Charpy impact test conditions, is
presented in Figure 6(b) as a function of fiber volume
fracture (Vf), for S-2 glass/HDPE composite laminates.
In x–y plots, energy and impact toughness tell us that
these data sets are functions of laminate thickness.
As shown in Figure 6, impact energy and impact
toughness increase close to linearly with increasing lam-
inate thickness and fiber volume fraction (Vf). These are
expected results because of the linear increasing of
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on November 2, 2012
2839
impact energy and impact toughness. Consequently,
according to test results and calculations from
Equation (2), the composite impact energy and
impact toughness would increase with an increase in
the number of layers, thickness, or fiber volume frac-
tion (Vf).
Damage or failure mechanisms can be classified into
the following three terms: (1) those related to the matrix
only, including matrix plastic deformation and matrix
fracture; (2) those related to the fiber only, including
fiber plastic deformation and fiber fracture; (3) inter-
face-related mechanisms, including fiber-matrix interfa-
cial debonding, postdebonding friction, and fiber pull-
out. In general, the failure mechanisms depend not only
on the properties of the constituents, but also on the
bonding efficiency across the interface, the fiber volume
fraction, the fiber length, and the fiber orientation.
According to V-notched Charpy impact test results of
the composite material of all laminates (1 L, 2 L, 3 L,
and 4 L), the damage pattern observed is consistent
with these three factors as explained above. So failure
or damage takes place primarily along the ligament of
the specimen, with the matrix resin broken or matrix
fracture to a large extent, extensive fracture of fibrous
phase being the predominant failure mechanism and
fiber pull out to a small extent. In Figure 7, top and
2840
Figure 9. SEM images of matrix yielding and fiber-matrix
interfacial debonding at a cross section after the impact test.
front view photographs of Charpy impact damage on
an S-2 glass/HDPE composite material are shown.
In this study, a scanning electron microscope (SEM)
is used for detailed observation of the damage mecha-
nism analysis of the impact test specimen at a finer
scale. Figures 8 and 9 show the SEM images of a V-
notched Charpy impact test specimen after impact frac-
ture at the selected cross section. Fiber fracture and
matrix fracture are evident in the SEM images
(Figure 8). In this sense, S2-glass fiber contributes to
damage tolerance and impact toughness of the thermo-
plastic composite material. The HDPE thermoplastic
matrix is generally more susceptible to failure than
the reinforcing fibers; therefore, matrix plastic deforma-
tion occurs initially. In addition, the arrangement and
direction of the glass fibers are regular and perpendic-
ular to the impact direction. This suggests that the
crack, for example, the notch, will propagate through
the whole cross section, until a fracture in the specimen
under the impact load, thereby accelerating the speci-
men’s fracture.
Matrix plastic deformation and matrix fracture are
also clearly visible in Figure 9. It shows crack growth
developing and propagating in the notch direction. The
matrix layer yielded initially, as a result of stress con-
centration, forming these surfaces and absorbing plastic
deformation energy to enhance the toughness of the
composites, and then fiber fracture, matrix fracture,
and fiber–matrix interface surface separation occurred
consecutively. Interface-related mechanisms, including
fiber-matrix inter-facial debonding, post-debonding
friction, and fiber pull-out can be also seen in Figure 9.
Conclusions
In this paper, the impact behavior of plain weave S-2
glass fiber reinforced HDPE thermoplastic composite
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on November 2, 2012
Journal of Composite Materials 46(22)
material, by V-notched Charpy impact test, is investi-
gated. Based on this study, the following conclusions
can be drawn.
. Impact energies of the composite material increase
with an increase in the thickness and volume fraction
of composite materials, that is, 2.55-J, 4.23-J, 6.16-J,
and 9.68-J for 1 L, 2 L, 3 L, and 4 L composite lam-
inates, respectively.
. Impact toughness of the composite material is calcu-
lated to be 113.3-kJ/m2, 120.9-kJ/m2, 129.7-kJ/m2
and 161.3-kJ/m2 for 1 L, 2 L, 3 L, and 4 L composite
laminates, respectively. On the other hand, impact
toughness increases with an increase in thickness
and fiber volume fraction (Vf).
. Impact energy and impact toughness curves as a
function of fiber volume fraction (Vf) increase close
to linearly.
. Damage or failure occurs by matrix fracture, fiber
fracture and fiber pull out, respectively, in the
V-notch direction of all composite laminates (1 L,
2 L, 3 L, and 4 L).
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflict of Interest
None declared.
References
1. Bucknall CB. Toughened plastics. London: Applied
Science Publication, 1997.
2. Paul DR and Bucknall CB. Polymer blends, performance,
2nd edn. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 2001.
3. Pukanszky B, Maurer FHJ and Boode JW. Impact testing
of polypropylene blends and composites. Polymer Eng Sci
1995; 35: 1962–1971.
4. Mathurt KK, Needleman A and Tvergaard V. 3D
Analysis of failure modes in the Charpy impact test.
Model Simul Mater Sci Eng 1994; 2: 617–635.
5. Williams JG. Fracture mechanics of polymers. Chichester:
Ellis Horwood, 1984.
6. Meyers MA and Kumar CK. Mechanical behaviors of
materials. New York: Prentice Hall, 1998ISBN
9780132628174.
7. Fua SY, Lauke B, MaÈder E, Hu X and Yue CY. Fracture
resistance of short glass fiber reinforced and short carbon
fiber reinforced polypropylene under Charpy impact load
and its dependence on processing. J Mater Process Technol
1999; 89–90: 501–507.
8. Wambua P, Ivens J and Verpoest I. Natural fibres: can
they replace glass in fibre reinforced plastics? Composites
Sci Technol 2003; 63: 1259–1264.
Erkendirci
9. Tai CM, Li RKY and Ng CN. Impact behavior of poly-
propylene/polyethylene blends. Polymer Testing 2000; 19:
143–154.
10. Nuoping Z, Rödel H, Herzberg C and Krzywinski S.
Impact properties of stitched fibre/reinforced thermoplas-
tic composite. ICCM 17, Edinburg UK F7: 12.
11. Ferreira JAM, Costa JDM, Reis PNB and Richardson
MOW. Analysis of fatigue and damage in glass-fiber-
reinforced polypropylene composite materials.
Composites SciTechnol 1999; 59: 1461–1467.
12. Erkendirci OF and Avci A. Effect of inclined cracks on
the fatigue and fracture behavior of woven steel/rein-
forced polyethylene composite. J Reinforced Plastics
Composites 2010; 29: 1775–1792.
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on November 2, 2012
2841
13. Thomason JL and Vlug MA. Influence of fibre length
and concentration on the properties of glass fibre rein-
forced polypropylene. Composites Part A 1997; 28A:
277–288.
14. Fernández-Cantelli A, Argüeles A, Vina J, Ramulu M
and Kobayashi AS. Dynamic fracture toughness mea-
surements in composites by instrumented Charpy test-
ing: influence of aging. Composite Sci Technol 2002;
62(10–11): 1315–1325.
15. Burzic Z. The effect of fiber orientation on impact tough-
ness and fracture properties of carbon fiber-epoxy com-
posite. In: Proceedings of the Charpy Centenary
Conference. Poitiers.
 Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on November 2, 2012

View publication stats