Mechanical Properties of Kevlar-49 Fibre Reinforced Thermoplastic Composites

Mechanical Properties of Kevlar-49 Fibre Reinforced Thermoplastic

Composites
K.K. Herbert Yeung and K.P. Rao
Department of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
Received: 29 January 2010, Accepted: 3 October 2011

SUMMARY
Conventional materials made of glass and carbon fibres in thermoset resins are very frequently employed.
Recently, thermoplastic matrix composites are being developed to improve the toughness and damage tolerance
of composite laminates. The ductility of thermoplastic resins implies a more pronounced plasticity in service.
Kevlar fibre has a tensile strength comparable with that of carbon fibre, a modulus between those of glass and
carbon fibres and a lower density than both. Kevlar-49 reinforced composites are increasingly demanded in a
variety of commercial applications but their understanding is relatively new when compared to traditional fibres.
Simple micromechanics based models such as the rule of mixtures, inverse rule of mixtures (ROM), Halpin-Tsai
and Xu-Reifsnider models are employed to predict the mechanical properties of Kevlar-49 fibre composites
formulations. In this study, the mechanical properties including tensile, compressive and flexural strength and
modulus of Kevlar-49 thermoplastic based composites were experimentally obtained and compared with the
theoretical predictions. A systematic costing analysis of respective thermoplastic composites has been made for
the provision of composite selection guidelines for designers.

Keywords: Composites, Thermoplastic, Kevlar, Mechanical properties, Micromechanics

1. Introduction structural components and elements is composites. Chemical treatment

Thermosetting plastic reinforced
composites are commonly used over
a number of years. However, their
delamination tendency and property
degradation have stimulated interest
to develop toughened composites
using thermoplastic-based matrices.
The latter type has been receiving
increasing attention for use in
aerospace, automobile, and defence
industries due to their good impact
resistance1, high damage tolerance,
good durability, high recyclability2,
as well as shorter processing time.
Although, thermoplastic materials
offer the possibility of producing
composites with various mechanical
properties ranging from ductile
to brittle ones their application to
©
Smithers Rapra Technology, 2012
still immature because of the lack of
relevant experimental data. In addition,
thermoplastic composite materials
have high viscosity which makes it
difficult to impregnate resin into fibre
bundles3.
The principal advantages and
disadvantages of glass and carbon
fibres as reinforcements in epoxy
resins are well known. Kevlar is used
for rubber reinforcement as in armour
jackets. Kevlar-49 fibre has a tensile
strength comparable with that of carbon
fibre, a modulus between those of glass
and carbon fibres and a lower density
than both.
Interfacial properties of fibres are of
fundamental importance in designing
is known to be a very efficient
method for improving the interfacial
adhesion of organic fibre-reinforced
composites4 that leads to increase
in mechanical properties of the
composites5. However, the Kevlar-49
fibre reinforced composites show
poor interfacial adhesion between
fibre and the thermoplastic matrix
resin due to low surface energy and
chemically inert surface of the fibre.
In order to improve the interfacial
adhesion, extensive studies have been
performed6. Wu et al.7 investigated the
effect of plasma and chemical treatment
of Kevlar fibres on the mechanical and
fracture properties of Kevlar/epoxy
composites.
Efforts to understand the
mechanical behaviour of fibre
reinforced composites follow two
extremes, namely, continuum and
micromechanical approaches. In the
continuum approach, the composite is

Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 20, No. 5, 2012 411


considered as a homogeneous material
having a uniform (average) property,
ignoring the property difference
between each constituent8. On the
other hand, the micromechanical
approach considers the composite as
the combination of various materials
and derives overall properties utilizing
homogenization procedures based
on the individual properties of
constituents. The micromechanical
approach is useful to optimize the
design parameters of composites.
A general designer or manufacturer
requires a simple and reliable method
to estimate the mechanical properties
of composites for relevant applications,
mainly based on the fundamental
constituents’ properties. The present
work is specifically targeted towards
establishing a methodology for
economical production of composites.
The specific objectives of this study
are: (i) to evaluate the mechanical
behaviour of Kevlar-49 reinforced
composites with three different
thermoplastic materials as matrix in
tension, compression, and bending;
(ii) to apply simple micromechanical
models to evaluate the mechanical
properties so as to compare with the
experimentally obtained ones, and (iii)
to establish cost per unit performance
of mechanical properties of the
developed composites so as to develop
selection guidelines for designers and
manufacturers.
2. Micromechanics
Models for Prediction
of Mechanical
Properties
Micromechanical composite models
have been derived, based on the
properties of the individual components
of the composite and their arrangement.
Properties such as elastic modulus
(E), Poisson’s ratio (v) and volume
fraction of both fibre (Vf) and matrix
(Vm) are the fundamental quantities
needed to predict the properties of
the composite. Simple models such as
Rule of Mixture (ROM) and Inverse
412
K.K. Herbert Yeung and K.P. Rao
Rule of Mixture (IROM)9, models by
Caruso and Chamis10 and Knight11 are
in use to predict the tensile and flexural
modulus under the assumptions of
constant stress or strain through the
composite. Budiansky12 formulated a
complex model based on self-consistent
methods and Aboudi13 used method of
cell to predict the tensile properties.
Other attempts include those by Zhao
and Weng14, Eshelby15 and Mori and
Tanaka16 to predict flexural moduli.
Halpin and Tsai17 developed expressions
for modulus considering the effect
of contiguity, fibre and fibre packing
geometry, loading conditions, etc.
2.1 Classical Lamination
Theory
ROM equation assumes that the fibres
are oriented and fully strained along
their length. The IROM equation
assumes that the fibres and matrix are
equally stressed. ROM equation18 for
apparent Young’s modulus in the fibre
direction is:
E1 = E f1Vf + E m Vm (1)
where Ef, Em, Vf and Vm are the moduli
and volume fractions of the fibre and
matrix materials respectively.
Usually, the modulus of fibrous
composites is well predicted by the
Modified Rule of Mixtures (Modified
ROM) as follows:
(2)
E1 = κE f1Vf + E m Vm
where κ = is the geometrical factor
with consideration of the interfacial
bonding behaviour. For composites
under axial tension, κ = 0.919, and for
chopped fibrous composites, κ = 0.27
or 0.375 have been used previously19 to
account for the random orientation and
variation of aspect ratio of the fibres
in the composite.
The elastic modulus of the composite
in the transverse direction (E2) is
determined by an inverse rule of
mixtures equation18:
Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 20, No. 5, 2012
Ef2Em
E2 =
E f 2 Vm + E m Vf
(3)
The elastic modulus of the composite
in the transverse direction (E2) can also
be determined when s2 is unequal in
both the fibre and the matrix, following
Halpin-Tsai semi-empirical relation17
and Reuss’s assumption, and is known
as modified IROM.
(1+ Vf )E f 2 + Vm E m
E2 = Em
Vm E f 2 + (1+ Vf )E m
(4)
2.2 Halpin-Tsai Equations
The Halpin-Tsai 17,20 equations
are simple approximate forms of
the generalized self-consistent
micromechanics solutions developed
by Hill21. The modulus values based
on these equations agreed reasonably
well with the experimental values for a
variety of reinforcement geometries22.
The following form of the Halpin and
Tsai equation17, 20 can be used to predict
the tensile modulus and strength of
composites, neglecting the fibre crimps
and pattern effects:
 1+ ξηVf 
E1 = E m  
 1 − ηVf 
(5)
In equation (5) the parameter η is
given as23 :
η=
(E f1 / E m ) − 1
( E f1 / E m ) + ξ (6)
where ξ in Eqns. (5) and (6) is a shape
fitting parameter to fit the Halpin-Tsai
equation to the experimental data. The
significance of the parameter ξ is that
it takes into consideration the packing
arrangement and the geometry of the
reinforcing fibres20,26.
A variety of empirical equations for ξ
are available in the literature, and they
depend on the shape of the particle/
fibre and on the modulus that is being
predicted25. If the tensile modulus in the
principal fibre direction is desired, and
 Mechanical Properties of Kevlar-49 Fibre Reinforced Thermoplastic Composites
the fibres are rectangular or circular in
shape, then ξ is given by the following
equation25:
L L
ξ = 2   or ξ = 2  
 T D (7)
where L refers to the length of a fibre
in the longitudinal direction and T or D
is the thickness or diameter of the fibre
in the three-direction. From equations
(5) to (7), we finally get:
E f1 (1+ 2sVf ) + 2sE m Vm
E1 = E m
E f1Vm + E m (2s + Vf )
(8)
l l
where s = 2r = d = fibre aspect ratio.
As the fibre aspect ratio increases
(s→∞) , the material becomes a
continuous-fibre composite, and the
above equation reduces to the ROM
equation (Eqn. (1)). In contrast, as the
fibres get shorter (i.e., (s→0), Eqn. (8) is
reduced to the series model prediction
of IROM (Eqn. (3)). The model is ideal
when all fibres and matrix are linearly
elastic and the fibres are axisymmetric,
identical in shape and size, and can be
characterized by an aspect ratio l / d. In
addition, the fibre and matrix are well
bonded at their interface, and remain
that way during deformation.
2.3 Rosen and Xu-Reifsnider
Models25
Compressive stresses may be generated
in a structural element either due to
direct compressive loading and/or due
to bending or impact loading. Further,
the compressive strength is generally
lower than the tensile strength. Thus
failure may initiate due to compressive
stresses.
Fibres under compression generally
do not fail in pure compression mode;
rather, they fail by local buckling.
Micro-buckling of fibres is now
accepted to be the mechanism by
which unidirectional composites fail
under compression either in extension
mode or shear mode. The extension
Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 20, No. 5, 2012
mode involves stretch and compression of matrix in an out-of-phase manner.
The compression strength of composite in an extension or out-of-phase buckling
mode is23:
Vf E m E f1
σ CIC = 2Vf
3(1 − Vf )
(9)
In the shear or in-phase buckling mode the fibres buckle and the matrix is sheared,
and the resulting buckling stress is:
Gm
σ CIC =
1 − Vf
(10)
The simple two-dimensional model using traditional energy method to estimate
for fibre instability proposed by Rosen24 is based on the above two modes of
elastic buckling of fibres embedded in matrix. In general, compressive strength
predicted by extension mode is more than that by shear mode. Also, Eqn. (10)
shows the strength is independent of the type of reinforcement. It was found28 that
strengths estimated in both modes are higher than those obtained experimentally.
Xu and Reifsnider25 predicted the compressive strength based on the use of
micro-buckling model of a representative volume element using a Beam-on-
Elastic Foundation Model26. The effect of matrix slippage and fibre-matrix bond
condition was included by two factors, namely, ξ and η. The final expression in
terms of the constituent properties and micro-geometrical parameters is given
by the following expression:
 
E
σ CIC = G m Vf + m (1− Vf ) ×
 E f1 
 
 
 π πηrf sin πξ 
 2(1+ vm ) +1− ξ − 
  E  E  2π 
3  m  Vf m +1− Vf  (1+ Vf vf + vm (1− Vf ))
  E f1   E f1  
 
(11)
where ξ = 2s/L is the matrix slippage in percentage, η is the fibre-matrix bond
condition and it varies from 1 to 2 (η = 1 if the fibre is completely separated from
matrix on one side, and η = 2 if the fibre is well bonded on both sides). That is,
a value of 1 ≤ h ≤ 2 satisfies the requirement for actual composites.
2.4 Estimation of Manufacturing Cost
Comparative cost analysis is necessary to compare and assess the potential
deployment of thermosetting and thermoplastic composites in an economical
way. The total manufacturing cost of a part is obtained by summing the costs
incurred during each operation of the manufacturing sequence. Thus, combining
the above equations:
413
 K.K. Herbert Yeung and K.P. Rao

m n Composite 1: FP1 - Kevlar-49 fibre

C MANUF = ∑ Qh Ph (1+ Fscrap,h ) + ∑(1+ Fovh ) with thermoplastic P1 (SAN)
h=1 i=1
Composite 2: FP2 - Kevlar-49 fibre
 Soi pi qi
S  with thermoplastic P2 (ABS)
× ∑ w, j
tsetup,i + ∑ Fpres,k S w,k trun,i (1+ Frew,i ) +∑ w,l tmove,i 
 j=1 Zi k =1 l =1
Mi  Composite 3: FP3 - Kevlar-49 fibre
with thermoplastic P3 (Polyethylene)
tqueue,i twait,i
+I RVi−1 + I RVi +
HY HY 3.2 Composite Preparation
Method
ri
 2 H EQ,is 
∑ N +1 0,is sal 0,is mtn 0,is R 0,is E ,is t 
 (E − F E ) + F E +I E +U Chemical treatment of Kevlar-49 fibres
was done using 10 wt.% phosphoric
s=1  is run,is 
acid (H3PO4) solution in a laboratory
trun,is scale apparatus. The residual chemicals
H EQ,is
(1+ F ) rew,i on fibres were subsequently removed
(12) by boiling with acetone at 80 °C for 2 h.
The fibres were then washed several
It should be stressed that if any of the n manufacturing operations is not performed times with distilled water and dried in a
in house, the expression in square brackets in Eqn. (12) is simply replaced by vacuum oven at 80 °C for 24 h in order
the cost of subcontracting this operation. to improve fibre-matrix interfacial
strength. All treatments were based on
the recommendations made by Turner
3. Preparation of Composites
and Cogswell27. The architecture,
The mechanical properties of thermoplastic composite materials are dependent manufacturing, and quality control in
to a larger extent on the reinforcing fibre. High specific strength and modulus preparing the specimens of the three
are primary considerations but the fibre surface texture and functionality are also types of composites followed the
very important in order to promote adherence to the matrix. established recommendations28. Three
types of composite panels (labelled
FP1, FP2 and FP3) were fabricated. The
3.1 Materials Selected volume fraction of fibres used in all the
Kevlar-49 fibre (notated as fibre F) from DupontTM de Nemours is selected for this three sets of prepared composites was
study. The glass transition temperature of this material is 212 °C. Materials used maintained at 61% of the composite
as thermoplastic matrix are: (i) P1 - thermoplastic DOWTM SAN 110 (Styrene volume. The composites were prepared
Acrylonitrile) from Dow Plastics, (ii) P2 - ASTALAC® ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene by pultrusion on a RDXLL-5000
Styrene) 2029-2 from Marplex Australia Pty. Ltd., and (iii) P3 - DOWLEX® (Shanghai D&G Instruments Co., Ltd)
Polyethylene Resins 2045G from Dow Chemical Company, USA. The basic injection moulding machine according
physical and mechanical properties of fibre and matrix materials used in this study to specification GB 1040-79 (China).
are listed in Table 1. The notation used for the prepared composites is as follows: Melt and mould temperature of 260 °C

Table 1a. Basic properties of Kevlar-49 fibre

Fibre FibreDia., Density, rf Longitudinal Transverse Longitudinal Longitudinal Longitudinal Longitudinal
Notation df, (μm) (kg/m3) Modulus, Ef1 Modulus, Ef2 Shear Poisson’s Tensile Compressive
(GPa) (GPa) Modulus, Gf1 Ratio vf1 Strength, sfT Strength, sfC
(GPa) (MPa) (MPa)
F 12 1467.0 151.7 4.14 2.90 0.35 2757.9 517.1
*
as provided by the manufacturer, Dupont Inc. USA

Table 1b. Basic properties of the thermoplastics used as matrix

Matrix Matrix Density, rm Modulus, Em Shear Modulus, Tensile Strength, Compressive Shear
Notation Material (kg/m3) (GPa) Gm (GPa) smT (MPa) Strength, smC Strength, tm,
(MPa) (MPa)
P1 SAN 1080.0 3.45 1.29 69.0 106.9 93.8
P2 ABS 1050.0 2.41 1.06 45.5 66.5 62.1
P3 Polyethylene 920.0 1.10 0.73 10.8 27.6 21.7

414 Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 20, No. 5, 2012

 Mechanical Properties of Kevlar-49 Fibre Reinforced Thermoplastic Composites

and 80 °C, respectively, have been used.
A schematic of the matrix injection
pultrusion process used is shown in
Figure 1. The pultrusion machine
includes the following components:
filter creel fibre, pre-form plate, matrix-
injection/wet-out chamber, forming
die, heater die, puller mechanism and
cut-off saw. A “closed bath” technique
of matrix injection pultrusion was used,
in which the fibre is pulled through
the matrix injection chamber and the
thermoplastic matrix is melted and
injected under pressure.
4. Mechanical Testing
4.1 Uniaxial Tensile Test
Five dog-bone shaped specimens were
tested following BS 2792 Part 3 Method
321:1994 for each type of composite
laminate at the ambient conditions
using an extension rate of 1 mm/
min on a computer controlled 30 kN
MTS Alliance RT/30 testing machine
equipped with a digital controller
and computer data acquisition,
as per the schematic arrangement
shown in Figure 2a. Hydraulic
grips with surfalloy faces were used
for specimen loading. A biaxial
extensometer was used to monitor the

Figure 1. Schematic of the matrix injection pultrusion process for thermoplastic composites

Figure 2. Schematic of the various test configurations (dimensions in mm): (a) Uniaxial Tensile Test, (b) Compression Test,
and (c) Three-point flexural test (all units are in millimetres)

Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 20, No. 5, 2012 415

 K.K. Herbert Yeung and K.P. Rao

longitudinal and transverse strains in
the specimen. Instantaneous loads P
and displacements were recorded at a
rate of one set per second. The elastic
modulus (E) and the Poisson’s ratio (v)
were calculated using data regression,
and the tensile strength was calculated
from the maximum load and the actual
specimen cross-sectional area.
4.2 Compression Test
The compression tests were also
carried out using 30 kN MTS testing
machine (Figure 2b). Specimen of
5 mm nominal thickness with gauge
Table 2. Theoretical and experimentally obtained densities of the prepared
composites with 61% volume fraction of Kevlar-49 fibres
Density
Theoretical density (kg/ m ) - (x)
3
Experimental density (kg/ m3) - (y)
Ratio (y/x)
length (between grips) of 10 mm was
used as described in BS 2792 Part 3
Method 345A:1993. Five specimens
were tested for each sample. The
displacement during the test was
measured using a clip gauge transducer.
The compressive modulus and the
compressive strength corresponding to
the maximum load at failure could be
determined from the load-displacement
curve obtained for each specimen.
4.3 Three-point Flexural Test
Five specimens for each composite
type were tested in bending using
Composite type
FP1 FP2 FP3
1316.1 1304.4 1253.7
1180.0 1130.0 1235.0
0.900 0.905 0.901
the same testing machine, as per the
configuration shown in Figure 2c.
The radius of the loading roller tip
was 5 mm. The span length L was kept
as 40 mm to maintain a span length
to thickness ratio 8. Instantaneous
load P and crosshead displacement
δ measured by a linear variable
differential transformer (LVDT)
were recorded by a computerized
data acquisition system at one second
intervals. The flexural modulus (ECIB)
and strength (σC1B) were calculated
following BS 2782 Part 3 Method
335A:1993.
5. Results and
Discussion
5.1 Density of the Prepared
Composites
The theoretical and experimental
densities of the prepared composites
are shown in Table 2. The experimental
values obtained following ASTM
D3171 are approximately 90% of the

Table 3. Theoretically predicted values of mechanical properties of the composites

Loading Type Model Property (notation), unit Composite type
FP1 FP2 FP3
Longitudinal – ROM Tensile Strength (σC1T), MPa 1709.0 1700.0 1693.0
Tension mode Tensile Modulus (EC1T) GPa 93.9 93.5 93.0
Halpin-Tsai Tensile Strength (σC1T) MPa 1649.0 1641 1634.0
Tensile Modulus (EC1T) GPa 90.6 90.2 89.7
Modified ROM Tensile Strength (σC1T) MPa 1573.0 1564 1557.0
Tensile Modulus (EC1T) GPa 86.4 86.0 85.5
Longitudinal – Rosen – Extensional Mode Compressive Strength (σC1C) MPa 20152.0 16843.0 11379.0
Compression mode Rosen – Shear Mode Compressive Strength (σC1C) MPa 3329.0 2729.0 1880.0
Xu – Reifsnider Model Compressive Strength (σC1C) MPa 132.5 102.6 42.6
Transverse IROM Transverse Strength (σC1B) MPa 162.80 137.20 86.60
Transverse Modulus (EC1B) GPa 3.84 3.23 2.04
Modified IROM Transverse Strength (σC1B) MPa 163.40 141.40 99.60
Transverse Modulus (EC1B) GPa 3.86 3.34 2.35

Table 4. Experimental values of various mechanical properties of the prepared composites

Composite Tensile properties Compressive properties Flexural properties
σC1T EC1T εC1T P(p)CIT σC1C EC1C P(p)C1C σC2B EC2B εC2B P(p)C2B
MPa GPa % kN MPa GPa kN MPa GPa % kN
FP1 171.5 9.38 2.20 10.63 120.4 8.68 6.33 138.4 3.26 0.77 8.22
FP2 169.6 9.30 2.22 10.55 92.7 6.65 4.89 116.7 2.76 0.74 6.97
FP3 167.2 9.18 2.26 10.18 38.3 2.76 2.00 72.9 1.73 0.75 4.47

416 Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 20, No. 5, 2012

 Mechanical Properties of Kevlar-49 Fibre Reinforced Thermoplastic Composites

theoretical values. The differences can in a non-linear tension stress-strain for the three reinforced composites
be attributed to generation of voids curve having a slope that increases estimated by the model equations are
among packing layers. These results are with increasing stress. approximately an order of magnitude
within the range of densities obtained in higher than those experimentally
such types of composites as observed Figure 4 shows the experimental measured values. The reason for the
by Cervera et al.29 tensile strength and modulus values deviation is likely due to the rapid
with those predicted by the classical growth of fibre packing defects at
5.2 Tensile Properties lamination theories and Halpin-Tsai higher reinforcement levels, leading to
The theoretical and experimental equation. Theoretical prediction low experimental strength and modulus
tensile properties obtained for the
Figure 3. Typical engineering load-displacement curves from the uniaxial tensile
three thermoplastic composites are
tests for composites FP1, FP2 and FP
given in Tables 3 and 4. Figure 3
illustrates typical load-displacement
(P-δ) responses of the three fibre
reinforced thermoplastic samples.
FP1 and FP2 samples showed slightly
higher peak loads or strengths than that
of FP3. The trend is similar for elastic
modulus. Though it is of less practical
significance, all the three composites
exhibited some nonlinearity in their
tensile response. Apparently, the
increasing load straightens the fibres,
resulting in a higher tensile modulus as
the strain is increased. Zweben30 also
examined unidirectional composites
with Kevlar-49 fibres and found
that the waviness of fibres led to
non-linear stress–strain behaviour.
Typically, fabrication methods
introduce unintended fibre curvature
due to uneven resin flow that results

Figure 4. Comparison of theoretical and experimental values of (a) tensile strength and (b) tensile modulus of the tested
composite

Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 20, No. 5, 2012 417


values. Premature fibre breakage and
matrix failures are the possible reasons
for much large reduction in strength
values. The model of composite tensile
behaviour called ACK31 showed one
component (matrix in this case) can
be expected to break before the other.
Once a crack is formed in the phase and,
if there is an interfacial bond between
the fibre and matrix, for the matrix to
support additional load from the fibre
this load transfer will occur across
the break through local intact shear
of the matrix. Then the effect of the
fibre break will be isolated, permitting
it to be reloaded at a distance from
the break. When the stress gradually
applied on the composite reaches sCIT,
the composite can be reloaded and the
additional load will be supported only
by the matrix. The composite will fail
completely when the stress supported
by the matrix reaches the matrix
failure stress32. Though the mechanical
properties of the three chosen matrices
are significantly different (see Table 2),
the mechanical properties of the
respective composites in tension are
almost identical, indicating the critical
and limiting role of the fibres in the
performance of the composites.
5.3 Compressive Properties
The compressive load versus
displacement responses of the
composites loaded along the in-plane
direction are given in Figure 5. The
slopes of curves in Figure 5 indicate
that the compressive moduli of FP2
and FP3 are lower than FP1. The
load-displacement behaviour of all
the tested specimens showed nearly
linear elasticity up to the yield point.
There is a sudden drop of stress after
the maximum yield stress and failure
occurred rapidly indicating the loss
of composite integrity. Among them
FP1 shows the highest strength while
FP3 has the lowest properties. The
strengths of composites (Table 4)
are significantly different, following
the order of matrices strength. So the
matrix-property is more dominant
than inter-laminar and interfacial
bonding.
418
K.K. Herbert Yeung and K.P. Rao
The oscillating nature of the load-
displacement curve immediately after
yielding and continuous dropping
load up to failure is the common
feature in all three composites (ref
to Figure 5). When a composite
material is subjected to a compressive
load, several mechanisms contribute
to failure, and the major ones are:
matrix yield followed by fibre micro-
buckling, local fibre micro-bucking
within an elastic matrix, shear failure,
and pure fibre compressive failure.
During the pultrusion process, all
fibres are not perfectly aligned in
a uniaxial direction. Such fibre
misalignment plays an important role
in affecting the actual compressive
strength. In addition, the fibres may
hinder the specimen’s ability to bend,
contributing to increase in composite
strength. The misaligned fibres begin
to buckle when the matrix starts
yielding. After yielding occurs, the
matrix surrounding the fibres will
harden. This failure process repeats
itself and this mechanism leads to
the oscillating nature of the load-
displacement curve.
As can be seen from Figure 6 and
Tables 3 and 4, the Xu and Reifsnider31
model predicts the compressive
strength quite accurately. Therefore, the
selected value of 1.5 for the parameter h
in Eq. (11) representing the fibre-matrix
condition seems reasonable. On the
Figure 5. Typical load-displacement curves obtained in compression tests for
composites FP1, FP2 and FP3
Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 20, No. 5, 2012
other hand, the predictions including
shear and extension mode proposed by
Rosen25 significantly over-predicted
the properties.
5.4 Flexural Properties
The three common modes of material
failure under flexural transverse
tension are: (i) failure of fibre-matrix
interface (adhesion failure), (ii) failure
of the matrix (cohesion failure), and
(iii) fibre failure. Figure 7 compares
the stress-strain curves from the
three-point bending test for the three
thermoplastic composites. They show
that the tested composites failed
gradually and strains at maximum
stress remained nearly the same.
FP1 exhibits the highest strength and
flexural modulus, followed by FP2 and
FP3. The Kevlar-49 fibre composites
generally fail gradually at larger
strains when compared to that of fibre
glass reinforced plastics, indicating
increasing energy absorption and
better damage tolerance.
Figure 8 shows the comparison of
predictions of IROM and modified
IROM models with the experimental
results of strength and flexural
modulus for the three composites. The
figures indicate that the experimental
values are somewhat closer to that
of theoretical values obtained using
classical laminate theory (CLT).
 Mechanical Properties of Kevlar-49 Fibre Reinforced Thermoplastic Composites

5.5 Comparison of Predicted Figure 6. Comparison of theoretical and experimental values of compressive
Models and Their Responses strength for composites FP1, FP2 and FP3

Tables 5a, 5b and 5c show comparison

of experimentally obtained values
of tensile, compressive and flexural
strengths with respect to the properties
of their respective constituents, namely,
fibre and matrix. Table 5a shows that
the theoretically calculated tensile
strengths are an order of magnitude
higher compared to those obtained
experimentally. The ratio between
experimentally determined tensile
strength values to the fibre strength is
nearly constant (approximately 0.10)
for the three thermoplastic composites.
This clearly indicates that the tensile
strengths obtained are controlled by
fibre alone and the matrix contribution
is negligible.

As can be seen in Table 5b,

experimentally obtained compressive
strengths are about 10% lower than
those estimated using Xu-Reifsnider
model26 for all three composites. This Figure 7. Typical stress-strain curves obtained from three point flexural test for
small difference can be attributed composites FP1, FP2 and FP3
to the expected deficiencies in the
manufacturing of composites. Fibre
bundling, interfacial debonding,
waviness, misalignments, material
nonlinearity, void formation etc. reduce
the strength of composites. The relative
strengths of the three composites with
respect to the properties of constituents
indicate that matrix seems to be the
controlling contributor.

In Table 5c, experiment data shows that

the obtained flexural strengths are about
15% lower than the corresponding
theoretical values using IROM
model for all three composites. Such
deviations, similar to those observed
in compression, may be attributable
to the limitations of manufacturing of
these composites.

The consolidated results presented in

Figure 9 indicate that values of tensile
strength and modulus are similar
since they are fibre dominated. The
compressive strengths are lower and
appear to be matrix dependent. The
flexural strengths, as seen in Figure 9,
are between the tensile and compressive
values, whereas the flexural modulus
values are the lowest among the three
types of loading.
The selection of fibre is very important
when the application of thermoplastic
composites is dominated by their
tensile behaviour. On the other hand,
the selection of suitable thermoplastic

Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 20, No. 5, 2012 419

 K.K. Herbert Yeung and K.P. Rao

Figure 8. Comparison of IROM and modified IROM model estimations with the experimentally obtained values of (a)
flexural strength and (b) flexural modulus

Table 5a. Comparison of experimentally obtained tensile strengths of the matrix assumes a controlling role
composites with respect to model prediction and the respective properties of the when the composites are to be used in
constituents compressive stress environment. As
Composite Exp. (σ CIT ) Exp. (σ CIT ) Exp. (σ CIT ) can be seen from the results presented
in Tables 3 and 4 and Figure 6, it may
ROM (σ CIT ) σ fT σ mT
be concluded that micro-buckling
FP1 0.10 0.062 2.49 approach has had little success in
FP2 0.099 0.062 3.77 predicting the compressive strength in
FP3 0.099 0.061 15.88 fibre composites. Rosen’s model25 of
micro-buckling using the matrix shear
modulus as the controlling property has
Table 5b. Comparison of experimentally obtained compressive strengths of the been found to grossly overestimate the
composites with respect to model prediction and the respective properties of the failure stress of composite materials. In
constituents general, matrix nonlinearity and fibre
Composite Exp. (σ C1C ) Exp. (σ C1C ) Exp. (σ C1C ) waviness or misalignments operate
Xu-Reifsnider Model (σ C1C ) σ fC σ mC in tandem to produce micro-buckling
loads that are lower than Rosen’s
FP1 0.91 0.23 1.13 original elastic results for straight
FP2 0.90 0.18 1.39 fibres.
FP3 0.90 0.074 1.39
5.6 Cost Analysis
Table 5c. Comparison of experimentally obtained flexural strengths of the The manufacturing cost can be
composites with respect to model prediction and the respective properties of the estimated with a rigorous consideration
constituents of the process-performance-cost
Composite interrelations based on the fundamental
Exp. (σ C2 B ) Exp. (σ C2B ) Exp. (σ C2B )
data. The composites produced for this
IROM (σ C1B )  σ fT + σ fC   σ mT + σ mC 
    study had a C-channel configuration
 2   2  with a girth of 320 mm and in lengths
FP1 0.85 0.085 1.57 of 6000 mm, and 6 pieces were
produced at a time. Quantities of fibres
FP2 0.85 0.071 2.08
and matrix used for the estimation of
FP3 0.84 0.045 3.80 total manufacturing cost are given in

420 Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 20, No. 5, 2012

 Mechanical Properties of Kevlar-49 Fibre Reinforced Thermoplastic Composites

Figure 9. Comparison of experimentally measured values of tensile, compressive and flexural (a) strength and (b) modulus for
composites FP1, FP2 and FP3

Table 6. Quantities of fibres and matrix used by pultrusion in the case study for total manufacturing cost evaluation
Cross L Total Total Measured No. of 6 m Total Fibre Fibre Total Matrix Vf Vm
Sectional Volume Weight Density specimens Fibre Weight Volume / Matrix Volume
Area for 6 m produced Weight / Piece Specimen Volume / piece
(6 pieces)
m2 m m3 kg kg/m3 kg kg m3 litres litres % %
FP1 0.0016 6 0.0096 11.37 1184.46 6.00 54.00 9.00 0.0061 23.52 3.92 61.01 38.99
FP2 0.0016 6 0.0096 11.27 1173.93 6.00 54.00 9.00 0.0061 23.52 3.92 61.01 38.99
FP3 0.0016 6 0.0096 10.83 1128.30 6.00 54.00 9.00 0.0061 23.52 3.92 61.01 38.99

Table 6. All input parameters for the Table 7. Model input data for the manufacturing cost estimation of Kevlar-49
calculation of total manufacturing thermoplastic composites by pultrusion
cost for Kevlar-49 thermoplastic Model Input Data Symbol Unit FP1 FP2 FP3
composites using Eq. (12) are shown Quantity of material Q kg 11.37 11.27 10.83
in Table 7. Material Purchasing Price P USD/kg 8.63 8.05 7.95
Scrap factor Fscrap % 3 3 3
The quantity of material is the total Equipment purchase price E0 USD 120k 120k 120k
weight of constituents per cubic Equipment lifetime N yr 15 15 15
millimetre while material purchasing
Equipment salvage factor Fsal % 20 20 20
price shows the total material cost
Equipment maintenance factor Fmtn % 1 1 1
of constituents including additives
in USD per kilogram. This cost Equipment utilities Ug USD 0 0 0
evaluation procedure is relatively No. of workers o,p Manday 1.5 1.5 1.5
simple and applicable to a wide range Worker’s wages Sw USD/hr 15 15 15
of manufacturing processes. The Worker’s presence factor Fpres % 100 100 100
model considers the manufacturing Run Time trun Min 0.67 0.67 0.67
cost as the sum of the material cost, Rework factor Frew % 0 0 0
the labour cost and the overhead cost,
Interest rate IR % 8 8 8
and the estimated values are shown in
Table 8. The economic potential of the Overhead Factor Fovh % 75 75 75

Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 20, No. 5, 2012 421

 K.K. Herbert Yeung and K.P. Rao

Table 8. Results of cost for manufacturing of the Kevlar-49 thermoplastic composites

Composite Cost in USD Notation FP1 FP2 FP3
Total manufacturing cost per 6 m length x 250.70 229.03 211.42
Unit cost for the chosen section (per meter) y=x/6 41.78 38.17 35.24
Unit cost for 1 m x 1 m x 5 mm thickness sheet z=y / 0.32 130.58 119.29 110.11
Cost per m3 z/0.005 26,115 23,858 22,022
Cost per kg - 22.04 20.22 19.49
Reference price of constituents (USD):
Cost per m3 of fibre - 13,467 13,467 13,467
Cost per kg of fibre - 9.18 9.18 9.18
Cost per m of matrix
3
- 7,630 4,953 3,421
Cost per kg of matrix - 7.06 4.72 3.60

Table 9. Cost comparison on the basis of tensile, compressive and flexural properties of the tested composites
Property Composite Cost per kg Strength Cost to Modulus Cost to Order of
(USD) (MPa) Strength Ratio (GPa) Modulus Ratio Preference
(USD/MPa) (USD/GPa) (per unit cost)
Tensile FP1 22.04 171.5 0.129 9.38 2.350 3
FP2 20.22 169.6 0.119 9.3 2.174 2
FP3 19.49 167.2 0.117 9.18 2.123 1
Compressive FP1 22.04 120.4 0.183 8.68 2.539 1
FP2 20.22 92.7 0.218 6.65 3.041 2
FP3 19.49 38.3 0.509 2.76 7.062 3
Flexural FP1 22.04 138.4 0.159 3.26 6.76 1
FP2 20.22 116.7 0.173 2.76 7.33 2
FP3 19.49 72.9 0.267 1.73 11.27 3

composites can be derived on the basis
of cost per unit property (strength or
modulus), and the results are shown in
Table 9. A comparison of the results
obtained in this study indicates that
the best results are obtained with
FP1 (followed by FP2 and FP3) for
tensile properties, FP3 (followed by
FP1 and FP2) for flexural properties
and compressive properties. The
results can assist a designer to choose
the most suitable composites during
preliminary engineering design stage
itself.
6. Conclusions
The mechanical properties of three
Kevlar-49 based thermoplastic
composites with fibre fraction of
61% were obtained experimentally
and predicted using micromechanical
models. Cost estimation of the
manufacturing of these composites was
made, and the following conclusions
are drawn from this study:
1. T h e t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h o f
thermoplastic composites
predicted using ROM, modified
ROM and Halpin-Tsai models
were approximately an order
of magnitude higher than the
experimentally measured values.
2. The compressive strengths
predicted by the Xu and Reifsnider
model were in very good agreement
with the experimental values for
all composites whereas the Rosen
model predictions were extremely
high.
3. The flexural properties obtained
using IROM model were about
15% higher than the experimentally
obtained values.
4. The compression and flexural
properties, i.e., strength and
modulus, of all three thermoplastic
composites were significantly
lower than their tensile properties.
5. The strengths of composites using
a SAN matrix were higher than
that of ABS polyester, followed by
polyethylene.
6. From the cost analysis, FP1
provided the best performance
in terms of cost per unit tensile
strength and modulus, whereas FP3
provided the best results for flexural
and compressive properties.
7. Nomenclature
d Fibre diameter
ε1 Strain in longitudinal
direction
εf Fibre strain
εm Matrix strain

422 Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 20, No. 5, 2012

 Mechanical Properties of Kevlar-49 Fibre Reinforced Thermoplastic Composites
εCIT Elongation under tensile load
εC2B Elongation under flexural
load
EC1T Tensile modulus
EC2B Flexural modulus
Ef Young’s modulus of fibre
Ef1 Young’s modulus in
longitudinal direction
Ef2 Young’s modulus in
transverse direction
Em Young’s modulus of fibre
ξ Shape fitting parameter
G12 Shear modulus in 1-2
direction
Gf Shear modulus of fibre
Gm Shear modulus of matrix
κ Geometrical factor
m materials
n operations
oi workers for setup activity
included in operation i
pi workers for run activity
included in operation i
ρf Density of fibre
ρm Density of matrix
qi, workers for move activity
included in operation i
ri equipment components
included in operation i
S Fibre aspect ratio
s1 Stress in longitudinal
direction
s2 Stress in transverse direction
sCIT Tensile strength
sC2B Flexural strength
smC Compressive strength
P(p) C2B Peak load in flexural test
P(p) CIC Peak load in compressive test
P(p) CIT Peak load in tensile test
τm Shear modulus of matrix
Vf Fibre volume fraction
Vm Matrix volume fraction
Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 20, No. 5, 2012
References
1. Vedula M. and Koczak M.J.,
Journal of Thermoplastic Composite
Materials, 2 (1989) 154-163.
2. Schinner G., Brandt J. and Richter
H., Journal of Thermoplastic
Composite Materials, 9 (1996) 239-
245.
3. Hou M., Ye L. and Mai Y.W.,
Plastics Rubber and Composites
Processing and Applications, 23
(1995) 279-293.
4. Lin T.K., Wu S.J., Lai J.G. and
Shyu S.S., Composite Science and
Technology, 60 (2000) 1873–1878.
5. Park S.K., Kim M.H., Journal of
Materials Science, 35 (2000) 1901-
1905.
6. Nardin M., El Malikia A. and Schultz
J., The Journal of Adhesion, 40
(1993) 93–106.
7. Wu S.R., Sheu G.S. and Shyu S.S.,
Journal of Applied Polymer Science,
62 (1996) 1347-1360.
8. Kim J.H., Lee M.G., Ryou H., Lee
M.H., Chung K., Kang T.J., and
Youn J.R., Proceedings of the 8th
Esaform Conference on Material
Forming, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, pp.
955-958 (2005).
9. Christensen R.M., Mechanics of
Composite Materials, John Wiley,
New York, USA (1984).
10. Caruso J.J. and Chamis C.C.,
Journal of Composites Technology &
Research, 8 (1986) 77-83.
11. Knight M., Journal of Composite
Materials, 16 (1982) 153-159.
12. Budiansky B., Journal of the
Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 13
(1965) 223-227.
13. Aboudi J., Mechanics of composite
materials: a unified micromechanical
approach, Elsevier, New York, USA
(1991).
14. Zhao Y.H. and Weng G.J., Journal of
Applied Mechanics, 57 (1990) 158-
167.
15. Eshelby J.D., Proceedings of The
Royal Society of London, A241
(1957) 376-396.
16. Mori T. and Tanaka K., Acta
Metallurgica, 21 (1973) 571-574.
17. Halpin J.C. and Tsai S.W., In:
Effect of environmental factors
on composite materials. primer of
composite materials: analysis (2nd
ed.), Air Force Technical Report
AFML-TR-67-423, Technomic,
Westport, CT, p. 77 (1969).
18. Tucker C.L. and Liang E.,
Composites Science and Technology,
59 (1999) 655-671.
19. Fukuda H. and Chou T.W., Journal
of Materials Science, 16 (1981)
1088-1096.
20. Halpin J.C. and Kardos J.L., Polymer
Engineering and Science, 16 (1976)
344-352.
21. Hill R., Journal of the Mechanics
and Physics of Solids, 12 (1964) 213-
218.
22. Minus M.L. and Kumar S., JOM
Journal of the Minerals, Metals and
Materials Society, 57 (2005) 52-58.
23. Kelly A. and Davies G., The
Metallurgical Reviews, 10 (1965)
1-77.
24. Rosen B.W., American Society for
Metals, Metals Park, Ohio, pp. 37-75
(1965).
25. Xu Y.L. and Reifsnider K.L., Journal
of Composite Materials, 27 (1993)
572-588.
26. Wang R. and Ravi-Chandar K.,
Journal of Applied Mechanics, 71
(2004) 706-712.
27. Turner R.M. and Cogswell F.N.,
SAMPE Journal, 23 (1987) 40-44.
28. Gentz M., Armentrout D.,
Rupnowski P., Kumosa L., Shin
E., Sutter J.K. and Kumos M.,
Composites Science and Technology,
64 (2004) 203-220.
29. Cervera F., Sanchis L., Sanchez-
Perez J.V., Martınez-Sala R., Rubio
C., Meseguer F., Lopez C., Caballero
D. and Sanchez-Dehesa J., Physical
Review Letters, 88 (2002) 23902.
30. Zweben C., AIAA Journal, 6 (1968)
2325-2331.
31. Aveston J., Cooper G.A. and Kelly
A., In: The Properties of Fibre
Composites, IPC Science and
Technology Press, Surrey, pp. 15-26
(1971).
32. Bunsell A.R. and Renard J.,
Fundamental of Fibre Reinforced
Composite Materials, CRC Press,
ISBN: 9780750306898.
423
 K.K. Herbert Yeung and K.P. Rao

424 Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 20, No. 5, 2012