P103

VIBRATION DAMPING OF FIBER-REINFORCED

POLYURETHANE USING HIGH AND NEGATIVE POISSON’S
RATIO LAMINATES
Deepak Keshavamurthy, Krishna Murthy Hossakere (Graduate Students)
Larry D. Peel (Associate Professor)
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Texas A & M University - Kingsville
700 University Blvd – MSC 191, Kingsville TX 78363
deepakkeshav@yahoo.com, k_murthy23@yahoo.com, larry.peel@tamuk.edu

ABSTRACT
Fiber reinforced composites are replacing conventional materials for their low density and
excellent stiffness and damping characteristics. In recent years fiber reinforced polyurethane has
received more attention due to its high vibration damping capability. Other work has shown that
polyurethane foams having negative Poisson’s ratios exhibit good damping capabilities. Other
research indicates that neat polyurethane layers are not effective in reducing mechanical
vibrations. Fiber-reinforced polyurethane layers, however, have significantly reduced
mechanical vibrations with relatively high loss factors for bending modes. It is seen that fiber
orientation can significantly affect the dynamic properties of flexible and rigid composites. The
current research evaluates the role of high Poisson’s ratio and negative Poisson’s ratio laminates
in damping of fiber reinforced solid (non-foam) polyurethane composites in bending and
torsional modes. A high Poisson’s ratio and a negative Poisson’s ratio lay-up, consisting of
graphite fiber oriented at specified angles has been impregnated with two polyurethane
elastomers and laminated to aluminum base panels. Experimental data such as natural
frequency, damping loss factors for torsion and bending modes was collected from the 4 panels.
Bending mode loss factors for the panels ranged from 2 to 8.5 %. Structural characteristics such
as dynamic modulus of and skin loss factor were extracted from test data and compared to
previous work. For all the panels, the more compliant laminate produced the highest damping
with indications of some constrained layer damping between plies. The sign changes between
plies, of shear strain, of the high Poisson’s ratio laminate appear to contribute to damping. High
shear strains in the negative Poisson’s ratio laminates produced skin loss factor up to 44 % while
the high Poisson’s ratio laminates had skin loss factors up to 27 %.

KEYWORDS: Vibration Damping, Materials - Elastomers / Rubber, Mechanical / Physical

Properties.

1. INTRODUCTION
Improvement in the damping of mechanical vibrations has become one of the main
considerations in the development of materials for automobile and aerospace structures.
Vibrations can be minimized by: a) removing or isolating the source of vibrations, b) changing

Copyright 2005 by D. Keshavamurthy, K. Hossakere, and L. Peel. Published by Society for the Advancement of Material and
Process Engineering with permission.
the mass or stiffness of a structure so that the natural frequency(s) are changed, and c) absorbing
(damping) the vibrational energy. This work will discuss the last method.
Damping can be achieved by active or passive means or combination of both. Active damping
adds weight and complexity but provides good results. On the other hand passive damping can
be achieved by structural modifications and damping materials. Passive damping increases the
reliability and also reduces the complexity of a system. Improved damping of composite
materials combined with high stiffness and strength can be realized by control of geometric and
mechanical properties.
Considerable work on vibration damping in composite materials has been conducted [1-3].
There are two ways to improve the damping in polymers. They are macromechanical level and
micromechanical level. On the micro-mechanical level research has been concentrated on study
of constituent layer properties and orientations, interlaminar effects, vibration coupling, surface
attachments and damping treatments, co-cured damping layers and hybridization of laminae. All
of these parameters may have significant influence on the attainment of improved damping
characteristics. At the macro-mechanical level, recent work has been oriented to the
improvement of damping by optimizing the fiber orientation, fiber aspect ratio, fiber spacing,
fiber/matrix interphase effects, fiber coatings, fiber and matrix properties, and by using
constituent material hybridization concepts. There has been significant progress made in the
characterization of damping in composites and their constituents.
Lakes in a study involving negative Poisson’s ratio foam or “honeycomb” in a laminate produced
good damping [4]. It is expected that solid (non-foam) negative Poisson’s ratio laminates will
have high shear strains, which can absorb significant energy in the matrix and thus exhibit
excellent vibration damping.
Work conducted on several combinations of fiber-reinforced elastomers with (0/90) lay-ups
show that for a given polyurethane elastomer, the higher stiffness fiber or laminate produced the
highest damping, while for a given fiber or fiber orientation the most compliant matrix produced
the highest damping [5].
The current exploratory work evaluates the role of high and negative Poisson’s ratio laminates in
the damping of fiber reinforced solid (non-foam) polyurethane composites in bending and
torsional modes.

2. DISCUSSION OF HIGH AND NEGATIVE POISSON’S RATIOS

The inplane major Poisson’s ratio of a laminate is defined by
A12 A66 − A16 A26
ν xy = . (28)
A22 A66 − A262
Where Aij are inplane laminate stiffness values as defined by Hyer in [6]. For a traditional
graphite-epoxy angle-ply laminate, the major Poisson’s ratio may vary between approximately
zero and 1.5. However, for highly orthotropic material systems, such as fiber-reinforced
elastomers, Poisson’s ratios over 30 can be obtained. More details can be found in a sister paper
[7]. Using unbalanced laminates, it is possible to also obtain negative Poisson’s ratios.
To compare the effects of Poisson’s ratios and fiber orientation, four panels fabricated from
aluminum and laminated with various “skins”. All laminates but one (HP-M-L) used the T650
graphite fiber for reinforcement because of its high stiffness. Two panels used the very soft
polyurethane RP6410, and two panels used an intermediate hardness RP6442 polyurethane.
Each matrix type used a lay-up (skin & aluminum) of [152/302/aluminum/302/152] and [+15/-
15/+30/-30/aluminum/-15/+15/-30/+30], for a total of 4 panels. If each laminate is fabricated
from the same fiber, resin, and the lay-up shown, they should have the same extensional (x-
direction) stiffness. The first lay-up is non-balanced, and thus would have inplane shear-
coupling, while the second lay-up is balanced and has no inplane shear-coupling. Using the
orthotropic properties listed below, the Poisson’s ratios for each skin are listed in Table 1. Note
that even though each “skin in Table 1 is not symmetric, that the total laminate is symmetric,
thus out-of-plane coupling effects (Bij) on the Poisson’s ratios are ignored. The absolute value
of the high and negative Poisson’s ratios could have been higher, by changing fiber orientation,
but the objective in this case was to obtain significant values of inplane shear strain, rather than
achieve large values for Poisson’s ratio.

Table 1 Poisson’s ratios for skins fabricated from each material combination.
Lay-up schedule Material Combination Poisson’s Ratio Classification
[152/302] Graphite/6410 -6.4 NP-S-L
[152/302] Graphite/6442 -6.1 NP-M-L
[+15/-15/+30/-30] Graphite/6410 3.7 HP-S-L
[+15/-15/+30/-30] Graphite/6442 3.7 HP-M-L
The following notations will be used: High Poisson’s ratio soft laminate (HP-S-L) is T650 with
RP6410 resin, High Poisson’s ratio medium laminate (HP-M-L) is IM7 with RP6442 resin,
Negative Poisson’s ratio soft laminate (NP-S-L) is T650 with RP6410 resin, The negative
Poisson’s ratio medium laminate (NP-M-L) is T650 with RP6442 resin. The aluminum baseline
panels are referred to as: HP-S-B, HP-M-B, NP-S-B, NP-M-B respectively.

3. CONSTITUTIVE MATERIALS AND FABRICATION

This self-funded project was exploratory in nature and used available materials. The aluminum
plate dimensions are 0.508m x 0.0762m (20 in x 3 in) with a thickness of 4.762 mm (0.1875 in).
The average ply thicknesses for both (152 and 302) are 0.584 mm (0.023 in). Properties for the
polyurethane matrices and reinforcements are given in Table 2. Note that IM7 was used for the
HP-M-L system because there was shortage of T650 fiber.
The high Poisson’s ratio angle-ply “skins” were wound on a large diameter mandrel in a filament
winder. While wet, they were cut off the mandrel and vacuum-bagged on a flat plate at room
temperature for about 24 hours. Resin was applied during winding. The negative Poisson’s ratio
laminates started as unidirectional plies that were wound and impregnated on the same large
mandrel, then cut and cured flat. Once the unidirectional graphite cloth was cured, it was cut and
laminated at the specified angles of 15º and 30º. Aluminum tends to have poor adhesion with
polyurethanes, so a thin layer of a diluted primer was applied to both sides of each plate. These
thin layers were allowed to cure for 24 hours at room temperature. The “skins” were laminated
onto each side of the plates and them vacuum-bagged. All panels were allowed to cure under
vacuum bag at room temperature and post-cured in an oven at approximately 60 ºC (140 ºF).

Table 2 Mechanical Properties of polyurethane [8] and fiber [9].

Hardness Poisson’s Modulus Tensile Strength Elongation
Polyurethane
(Shore) Ratio MPa, (psi) MPa, (psi) (%)
RP6410 37A 0.5 1.65 (239) 3.48 (505) 330
RP6442 85A 0.5 7.0 (1,025) 14.48 (2100) 525
Graphite (T650) - 0.279 290 (4.21E+07) 4.82 (699000) -
Graphite (IM7) - 0.279 303 (4.39E+07) 5.3 (768700) -

Table 3 gives the baseline and lamina orthotropic properties for each panel. Several samples of
each “skin” were burnt at 500°C leaving only the fiber. Fiber volume fractions were determined,
and using them, approximate orthotropic properties, were determined through the Rule of
Mixtures. It was intended for each panel to have the same thickness and fiber volume fraction.
The differences in fiber volume fraction have undoubtedly affected the axial modulus and thus
the relative damping of each panel. Further work will explore this effect and a related study will
obtain orthotropic material properties.

Table 3 Baseline and Lamina Orthotropic Properties

Elastic Elastic
G12
Panel Vf (%) Modulus E1 Modulus E2 υ12
MPa, (psi)
MPa, (psi) MPa, (psi)
HP-S-B - 72395 (1.05E+07) - 0.33 124 (18000)
NP-S-B - 72395 (1.05E+07) - 0.33 124 (18000)
HP-S-L 33.8 97930 (1.42E+07) 2.49 (361.14) 0.43 0.83 (120.38)
HP-M-L 41.8 126600 (1.84E+07) 12.02 (1743.35) 0.41 4.00 (580.15)
NP-S-L 42.1 122000 (1.76E+07) 2.85 (413.35) 0.41 0.95 (137.64)
NP-M-L 32.2 93200 (1.35E+07) 10.31 (1495.33) 0.43 3.44 (498.92)

4. TEST PROCEDURE AND CALCULATIONS

A 3x20 rectangular mesh of points was marked on each of the two “laminated” panels and the
baseline aluminum plate. Two holes were drilled on each plate from which they were hung.
Various methods were experimented to obtain free-free support condition but fishing line and
rubber bands provided better results. Each of these mesh points were tapped with a calibrated
modally–tuned hammer. Three impacts per grid point were taken and frequency averaged. Data
was captured with an OROS Frequency Response Analyzer. The response for each plate was
measured between the excitation and a fixed reference accelerometer located at the center of the
upper edge of the plate. An exponential window with a time constant 0.0774 was employed in
order to reduce the filter leakage and improve the quality of Fourier transform. Additional
damping introduced by the exponential window was corrected using following equation from
Ratcliffe [10]:
 ζ c = ζ m −  100% ( 2π f nτ ) [1]
 

Where
τ = exponential window time constant (sec),
ζm = damping ratio from modal interposition,
ζc = corrected damping ratio, and
f n = nth natural frequency of the panel (Hz).

The equivalent loss factor (η) is used at resonance, where η=2ζ. Natural frequencies and
corrected damping loss factor were calculated for different mode shapes. Examining the
animated mode shapes of each panel identified different modes. Figure 1 shows bending and
torsion modes for the Graphite/RP6410 high Poisson’s ratio laminate (±152º±302º) as shown in
MESCOPE’s Visual Modal. The current work is limited to the analysis of dynamic stiffness for
bending modes only. Dynamic stiffness of bending modes was calculated using elementary
vibration theory and the Euler–Bernoulli beam equation.

Figure 1. Third Bending and Torsion Modes from Experimental Analysis.

Natural frequency and dynamic stiffness for a homogenous rectangular beam are given by

2 ( K n L) 4 (EI) x
fn = [2]
(2π )2 ρ x Α x L4

48 ρ x L 4π 2 f n
2
Εx = 2
[3]
t x ( K n L) 4

The subscript x refers to global values, I is the total area moment of inertia, ρ is mass density,
and (KnL) are based on boundary conditions as given in ref [11]. A is the cross-sectional area
and tx is the panel thickness. The skin modulus is calculated using an approach given by
Ratcliffe and Crane, which was derived using composite beam theory [12] as
 Εs =
(ΕΙ )x − (ΕΙ )o = Ε x t x 3 − Ε o to 3 [4]
Ιs 3
t x − to
3

Where o refers to baseline values and s refers to skin values.

The skin loss factors are obtained using same approach [5], and assume that the energy
dissipated by mechanical vibration is proportional to energy of deformation and the loss factor
being the constant of proportionality. The skin loss factor is denoted as ηs Where

Ε o t o (η x − η o )
3

η s =η x +
( 2 2
2Ε s t s 4t s + 3t o + 6t o t s ) [5]

t x − to
ts = [6]
2

5. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
4.1 Damping Loss Factor For laminates In Table 4, 5, 6 and 7 the natural frequencies and
loss factors for each panel, in bending and torsion, respectively, are given. B1, B2 …B6
represents first six bending modes while T1, T2 …T6 represents first six torsion modes.
Damping loss factors vs. natural frequency are plotted and compared with the base aluminum.
Remembering that Figure 1 shows the shape of the third bending and torsion modes for the
laminates, we can view the loss factors for bending modes in Figure 2, while Figure 3 represents
the loss factors for torsion modes.
From Figure 2 and 3, it is found that changes in elastomer durometer/stiffness significantly affect
the damping characteristic of the FRE. From a previous work it was found that a lower modulus
elastomer with a higher stiffness fiber produced the highest damping. In the current research the
most compliant laminates (HP-S-L, NP-M-L) have the highest damping in both bending and
torsion. The HP-M-L panel had the stiffer RP6442 resin, and produced the stiffest laminate.
Additionally its natural frequencies were significantly higher than the baseline and the other

Table 4 Natural Frequency of base and laminates for Bending

Material Natural Frequency (Hz)
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6
HP-S-B 98.3 273.1 533.8 889.1 1327 1858
HP-M-B 98.3 273.2 533.3 890.5 1323 1862
HP-S-L 124.8 327.3 602.8 962.1 1376 1896
HP-M-L* 178.9 480.9 909.3 - - -
HP-M-L** 167.9 459.1 863.4 1385.2 - -
NP-S-B 97.9 272.7 531.9 889.0 1321 1859
NP-M-B 98.0 273.2 533.3 890.4 1324 1863
NP-S-L 96.7 268.6 518.4 855.0 1262 1756
NP-M-L 114.9 315.3 598.1 972.2 1405 1933
*BPC - Before Post Cure, **APC - After Post Cure
Table 5 Natural Frequency of base and laminates for Torsion
Material Natural Frequency (Hz)
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
HP-S-B 370.6 743.7 1159 1589 - -
HP-M-B 371.1 745.3 1162 1592 - -
HP-S-L 376.8 764.1 1174 1600 - -
HP-M-L* 451.5 1423.3 1957 - - -
HP-M-L** 450.1 917.3 1426 1950 - -
NP-S-B 376.0 759.3 1180 1615 - 1859
NP-M-B 371.1 745.1 1169 1592 - 1863
NP-S-L 375.3 721.1 1110 1506 1956 1756
NP-M-L 397.2 785.4 1615 - - 1933
*BPC - Before Post Cure, **APC - After Post Cure

Table 6 Damping Loss Factor of Base and Laminates in Bending

Material Damping Loss Factor (%)
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6
HP-S-B 0.11 0.04 0.05 0.23 0.05 0.33
HP-M-B 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.21
HP-S-L 7.33 8.40 8.49 7.92 4.85 2.77
HP-M-L* 2.03 2.71 3.67 - - -
HP-M-L** 2.86 2.81 3.69 4.46 - -
NP-S-B 0.06 -0.01 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.15
NP-M-B 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.27
NP-S-L 5.51 5.38 5.21 4.96 4.64 2.07
NP-M-L 5.67 5.83 6.39 6.54 6.17 3.78
*BPC - Before Post Cure, **APC - After Post Cure

Table 7 Damping Loss Factor of base and laminates for Torsion

Material Damping Loss Factor (%)
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
HP-S-B 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.03 -
HP-M-B 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.05 -
HP-S-L 4.65 5.07 5.11 5.58 -
HP-M-L* 1.64 2.66 3.19 - -
HP-M-L** 1.72 1.91 2.49 2.98 -
NP-S-B 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.04 -
NP-M-B 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.06 -
NP-S-L 3.96 3.96 3.44 3.24 1.31
NP-M-L 5.53 5.22 4.53 - -
*BPC - Before Post Cure, **APC - After Post Cure
 9
HP-S-B HP-M-B
8 HP-S-L HP-M-L(BPC)
HP-M-L(APC) NP-S-B
NP-M-B NP-S-L
7 NP-M-L
Loss Factor (%)

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
Natural Frequency (Hz)

Figure 2. Bending modes loss factor vs. natural frequency for high and negative Poisson’s ratio
laminates.
6

5
Loss Factor (%)

2
HP-S-B HP-M-B
HP-S-L HP-M-L(BPC)
1 HP-M-L(APC) NP-S-B
NP-M-B NP-S-L
NP-M-L
0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000

Natural Frequency (Hz)

Figure 3. Torsional mode loss factor vs. natural frequency for high and negative Poisson’s ratio
laminates.
panels. It is thought that old resin or resin-curing problems may have affected it. The HP-M-L
panel was tested for dynamic parameters before post cure. Although a post-cure of the
elastomers is expected, and the post-cure data is considered more accurate, the “Before Post
Cure” initial data is included to show the difference. Note that no distinguishable higher bending
and torsion modes could be detected for the HP-M-L panel, especially before post-cure. This is
more common for highly damped or highly anisotropic structures, but is unusual in this case.
After all data is collected, the panel will be torn apart for further study. It was expected that the
NP-S-L panel would have higher damping than it’s partner with the stiffer matrix, but it appears
that the smaller fiber volume fraction is the more significant factor. One should not make too
many conclusions about whether the high or negative Poisson’s ratio laminates are better until
the skin lost factors are calculated. A discussion later will show that both are expected to do
well. For all polyurethanes, the damping loss factor is a function of frequency and loss factor
increases with frequency for torsion as well as for bending except for HP-S-L in bending mode,
which decreases. HP-S-L, which contains the most flexible resin, shows the highest damping
loss factor for both types of mode. The high baseline or aluminum loss factors at high
frequencies probably indicate that our test stand is not rigid enough.
For the negative Poisson’s ratio laminates the loss factor decreases gradually over a certain
frequency range and suddenly drops at higher frequency. This pattern is similar for both bending
and torsion modes. The loss factor in general is very high when compared to the loss factor of
Aluminum base panel. Thus negative Poisson’s ratio laminates have good vibration damping for
frequencies less than 1200 Hz. Therefore from Figure 2 and 3 it is easily concluded that the
softer laminate shows the highest damping for both modes due to their higher inplane axial
stiffness. The fact that both NP experienced high damping is indicative.
4.2 Normalized Beam Modulus Figure 4 shows the normalized dynamic beam modulus for
different resin combinations. Dynamic modulus is normalized with the aluminum first bending
mode modulus for the high Poisson’s ratio and negative Poisson’s ratio laminates. Dynamic
stiffness decreases with frequency for all combinations, indicating frequency dependence of
properties, although the NP laminates have the flattest curves. HP-S-L shows the lowest
dynamic stiffness but stabilize after certain frequency. HP-M-L after post cure has dynamic
stiffness close to aluminum but slightly decreases at high frequency. This may be a setback
while using for high or variable frequency applications. The different dynamic properties of HP-
S-L and HP-M-L represent how resins and post curing can affect dynamic properties of
composites. Obviously ply and laminate response is also affecting damping or the NP and HP
laminates would show dynamic stiffnesses consistent with static values.
4.3 Normalized Skin Modulus In Figure 5 is compared the normalized skin modulus of the
FRE skins. The trends are virtually identical to the beam moduli, but are exaggerated more. HP-
M-L before post cure has highest skin modulus after post cure laminate this might be due to the
resin after post cure has become much stiffer and rigid, but all were post-cured. HP-S-L has the
lowest skin modulus for long-range frequency, which is an advantage for various applications.
Dynamic stiffness for NP-S-L slightly decreases with increase in the frequency. But the skin
stiffness for NP-M-L though gradually decreases with increase in frequency. From Figure 5 and
8 there is around 75%-80% variation in the normalized skin modulus for all laminates except
 1.2

HP-S-B
Epanel / Ealuminium (B1)

1.0 HP-M-B
HP-S-L
HP-M-L
0.8 NP-S-B
NP-M-B
0.6 NP-S-L
NP-M-L

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Natural Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4. Normalized panel modulus vs. natural frequency

1.2

1.0
HP-S-L
Eskin / Ealuminim (B1)

0.8 HP-M-L
NP-S-L

0.6 NP-M-L

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400

Natural Frequency (Hz)

Figure 5. Normalized skin modulus vs. natural frequency

HP-S-L. Complex stiffness consists of a real part and an imaginary part, which corresponds to
energy dissipation [13]. The energy dissipation in turn depends on the driving frequency of the
external forces exciting the system, and which may explain the variation in the skin modulus.
Obviously if damping is high, there will be a reduction in dynamic stiffness.
4.4 Extensional Stiffnesses and Ply Shear Strains To explore the relationship between axial
stiffness, damping, and dynamic stiffness, the axial ply stiffness, Ex, is plotted as a function of
thickness in Figures 7 for the HP and NP laminates. The axial Young’s modulus for each layer
was calculated from a laminate design program [14]. It is seen that the outer layer (15°) has a
higher modulus than the inner layer (30°) as expected, and it is evident that the differences in
stiffness are functions of fiber volume fraction. Surprisingly, the dynamic stiffnesses,
particularly NP-S-L, do not follow the static stiffness trend. We have stated that there may be
“constrained layer-like” damping going on in the laminates, but if true, it is primarily in the
elastomeric interphase regions between plies. Both soft laminates show the stiffness in the 30°
layers to be less than the aluminum, indicating a small contribution to constrained layer damping
is possible.

±15, 152

±30, 302

Stiffness for HP-M-L

Stiffness for HP-S-L Al
Stiffness for NP-S-L
Stiffness for NP-M-L
±30, 302

±15, 152

00E+0 2E+4 4E+4 6E+4 8E+4 10E+4 12E+4

Axial Young's Modulus, Ex (MPa)
Figure 7. Thickness vs. axial modulus, Ex, for all HP and NP laminates.

In Figure 8 and 9 is plotted the shear strains for each ply when under a 17512 N/m (100 lb/in)
load. The plots are for comparison purposes only. There is substantial difference in strains
between aluminum and adjacent plies for NP and HP lay-ups. This difference aids in expending
energy during deformation. In case of an axial moment acting on the panels there is a sign
change in shear strain, which acts as constrained layer damping between the layers and HP-M-L
has more strain than HP-S-L, which is suitable when moment load is applied. The HP plies
 Ply

Shear Strain for HP-S-L

Shear Strain for NP-S-L Al

30, 30
Thickness (meters)

-30, 30

15, 15

-15, 15

-6.0E-05 -4.0E-05 -2.0E-05 0.0E+00 2.0E-05 4.0E-05 6.0E-05 8.0E-05

Strain

Figure 8. Average shear strain vs. thickness of soft laminate for a given axial load.

Ply
Shear Strain for HP-M-L
Al
Shear Strain for NP-M-L
Thickness (meters)

30, 30

-30, 30

15, 15

-15, 15

-6.0E-05 -4.0E-05 -2.0E-05 0.0E+00 2.0E-05 4.0E-05 6.0E-05

Strain
Figure 9. Average shear strain vs. thickness of medium laminate for a given axial load.
alternate the sign of their shear strain because of alternating angle signs. The differences in the
shear strain between each layer of the laminate can increase damping in the laminate. The bigger
the difference in the shear strain, better damping can be achieved in the laminate.
4.5 Skin Loss Factor Figure 6 and Table 8 represent the skin loss factors, which represents
energy dissipated in the fiber-reinforced elastomer layers due to deformation. The energy
dissipated by deformation typically increases with increasing frequency. HP-M-L has lowest
skin loss factor but has the highest axial stiffness. In a previous work, high fiber stiffness
contributed to high skin loss factors [5]. Loss factors from panels in that study, using the same
resin systems and 0/90 lay-ups are included for comparison. NP-S-L has a higher skin loss
factor than NP-M-L as expected. All the skin loss factors except the HP-M-L are quite high and
would be suitable for many structural applications. It is evident that additional mechanisms in
the NP laminates are causing them to be more effective in damping.

Table 8 Skin loss factor for all laminates in bending modes.

Skin Loss Factor (%)
Panel
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6
HP-S-L 14.95 19.76 24.12 26.96 20.88 12.19
HP-M-L 3.81 3.83 5.17 6.46 - -
NP-S-L 33.26 33.87 36.60 41.91 42.72 22.55
NP-M-L 13.91 14.96 18.04 20.65 22.71 14.02
FG/RP6410 11.49 20.31 - - - -
IM7/RP6442 4.61 5.64 - - - -

45
HP-S-L
40
HP-M-L
35 NP-S-L
NP-M-L
Skin Loss Factor (%)

30 FG/RP6410
IM7/RP6442
25

20

15

10

0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
Natural Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6. Skin loss factor vs. natural frequency.
 6. OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Fiber reinforced polyurethane laminates using two related lay-ups and two resins were bonded
on aluminum base panels in order to research the effects of high and negative Poisson’s ratio on
vibration damping. Overall, the negative Poisson’s ratio laminate using the softer resin produced
the highest damping when compared to the other laminates, although the negative Poisson’s ratio
laminate with a medium stiffness resin was almost as effective. Through extraction of stiffness
and skin properties, perceptions into damping mechanisms in polyurethane composites were
obtained. When compared to previous research work we can say that the high Poisson’s ratio -
medium resin laminate has the lowest damping, and most likely has fabrication or curing issues.
The high Poisson’s ratio – soft resin laminate produces the highest panel damping and likely had
some constrained layer damping between plies or near the aluminum plate. Laminates with
negative Poisson’s ratio were shown to be better vibration absorbers over the frequency range of
600-1600 Hz compared to high Poisson’s ratio laminates. Above 1600 Hz there is a drop in the
damping capability of all the polyurethane composites. Plotting shear strains as a function of
thickness indicates that differences in shear strain between plies can facilitate damping. All of
the skin loss factors except the high Poisson’s ratio – medium stiffness resins are quite high and
would be suitable for many structural applications. It is evident that additional mechanisms in
the negative poisons ratio laminates are causing them to be more effective in damping.
This work provides useful information regarding the enhancement of damping due to
modifications in laminate properties. Tailored fiber-reinforced elastomer systems will be useful
in developing cost effective composite structures that will not only enhance the system damping
but will give sufficient structural rigidity.

7. REFERENCES
1. Benchekchou, M. Coni, H.V.C. Howarth and R.G. White, “Some aspects of Vibration
Damping Improvement in Composite Materials”, Composites Part B, 29B, (809-817),
(1998).
2. I.C. Finegan and R.F. Gibson, “Recent Research on Enhancement of Damping in Polymer
Composite,” Composite Structures, 44 (2-3), 89 (1999).
3. R. Chandra, S.P. Singh and K. Gupta, “Damping studies in Fiber-Reinforced Composites-a
Review,” Composite Structures, 46 (1), 41 (1999).
4. R.S. Lakes, “Extreme Damping in Composite Materials with a Negative Stiffness Phase”,
American Physical Society, 86 (2001).
5. A.R. Sharma and L.D. Peel, “Vibration Damping of Flexible and Rigid Polyurethane
Composites,” SAMPE 2004, Long Beach CA, (2004).
6. M.W. Hyer, Stress Analysis of Fiber-Reinforced Composite Materials, McGraw-Hill, 115-
140, (1997).
7. L.D. Peel, “Investigation of High and Negative Poisson’s Ratio Laminates,” SAMPE 2005,
Long Beach CA, (2005).
8. Huntsman Advanced Materials, RenCast product data sheets, www.renshape.com, (Jan.
2004).
9. “Fibers for Reinforcement in Composite Materials”, www.azom.com, (Sept. 2004).
10. L.D. Peel., C.P. Ratcliffe and R. Crane, “Damping Characteristics of Fiber-reinforced and
Neat Polyurethane Over Selected Base Plate,” Presentation, Composite Group, Mechanics
Division, Naval Surface Welfare Center-Cardrock, West Bethesda, MD, (2001).
11. K.G. McConnell, “Vibration Testing Theory and Practice”, Wiley-Interscience Publication,
New York, pp 144-145, (1995).
12. R.M. Crane, C.P. Ratcliffe, "Graphite/polyurethane Flexible Composites: Mechanical and
Vibration Damping Properties", Survivability, Structures and Materials Directorate Research
and Development Report, CARDIVNSWC-TR-601-93/02, pp 57. (1993).
13 J. D. Inman, “Engineering Vibration”, Prentice Hall Inc, New Jersey, (2001), pp 399-400.
14 S.L. Folkman and L.D. Peel, Laminate Design Program, Software, (1998).
15. L.D. Peel, “Fabrication and Mechanics of Fiber-Reinforced Elastomers,” Ph.D. dissertation,
Brigham Young University, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Provo Utah, (1998).