4.7 Article

Performance of natural curaua fiber-reinforced polyester composites under 7.62 mm bullet impact as a stand-alone ballistic armor

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2017.08.003

Keywords

Composite; Natural fiber; Curaua fiber; Ballistic testa

Funding

  1. CAPES
  2. CNPq
  3. FAPERJ

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A multilayered armor system (MAS) is intended to personal protection against high kinetic energy ammunition. MAS layers are composed of materials such as a front ceramic and a back composite that must show both high impact resistance and low weight, usually conflicting characteristics. Synthetic fiber fabrics, such as Kevlar(TM) and Dyneema(TM), are the favorite materials to back the front ceramic, due to their high strength, high modulus and relatively low weight. Recently, composites reinforced with natural fibers have been considered as MAS second layer owing to their good performance associated with other advantages as being cheaper and environmentally friendly. Among the natural fibers, those extracted from the leaves of the Ananas erectifolius plant, known as curaua, stand out due to its exceptional high strength and high modulus. Thus, the objective of the present work is to evaluate the performance of curaua fiber-reinforced polyester composites subjected to ballistic impact of high energy 7.62 mm ammunition. Composites reinforced with 0, 10,20 and 30 vol.% of curaua fibers were produced and stand-alone tested as armor target to evaluate the absorbed energy. Analysis of variance (Anova) and Tukey's honest significant difference test (HSD) made it possible to compare the results to Kevlar(TM) laminates. Among the tested materials, the 30 vol.% fiber composites were found to be the best alternative to Kevlar(TM). (C) 2017 Brazilian Metallurgical, Materials and Mining Association. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available