journal article·2024-08

Comparison of the physico-chemical behavior of two prepregs used for body armor

M. P. Zylberberg, J. R. M. d’Almeida

Journal of Elastomers & Plastics· Volume 56· Issue 5
Publisher page

Abstract

The development of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fibers has resulted in continued improvement in ballistic protection, along with reduced weight in body armors. Prepregs from newly developed fibers are constantly available, although prepregs from older brands still remain on the market. In this work, the physicochemical properties of two successive generations of pre-impregnated materials are characterized to compare the two materials in the as-received condition and also after be consolidated in a ballistic plate. The results showed that fibers from the newer brand have a smaller diameter and greater tensile strength. This is an important result because the tensile strength of fibers is one of the variables that influence the ballistic performance of body armors. The smaller diameter of these fibers was associated with a greater degree of stretching during their manufacture, as revealed by the presence of two melting peaks in the DSC analysis.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Engineering and Vibrations Research · Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites · Mechanics and Biomechanics Studies

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Chemical and Materials Engineering Department of the Pontifical Catholic, University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico · Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior

References (38)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/B978-1-78242-461-1.00001-710.1016/B978-1-78242-461-1.00001-7 ↗
2. 10.1353/book.2217010.1353/book.22170 ↗
3. Travis H · 2012
4. 10.1007/s00068-012-0175-010.1007/s00068-012-0175-0 ↗
5. 10.14355/tlist.2014.03.00710.14355/tlist.2014.03.007 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.06.08110.1016/j.compstruct.2015.06.081 ↗
7. 10.14429/dsj.67.1146810.14429/dsj.67.11468 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.dt.2019.02.00210.1016/j.dt.2019.02.002 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2021.10393110.1016/j.ijimpeng.2021.103931 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2024.01.14010.1016/j.jmrt.2024.01.140 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2023.10451910.1016/j.ijimpeng.2023.104519 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.11478510.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114785 ↗
13. 10.1533/9781845691554.2.27210.1533/9781845691554.2.272 ↗
14. Cunniff P · 1999 · 814
15. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2013.03.01010.1016/j.ijimpeng.2013.03.010 ↗
16. 10.1023/A:101458081480310.1023/A:1014580814803 ↗
17. 10.1007/s10853-017-1724-z10.1007/s10853-017-1724-z ↗
18. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.10.01510.1016/j.compositesa.2015.10.015 ↗
19. 10.1002/polb.1072710.1002/polb.10727 ↗
20. 10.1007/s40870-014-0001-310.1007/s40870-014-0001-3 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2022.12716210.1016/j.matchemphys.2022.127162 ↗
22. 10.1007/978-0-387-74365-310.1007/978-0-387-74365-3 ↗
23. 10.5772/intechopen.7221210.5772/intechopen.72212 ↗
24. Kurtz SM · 2004
25. 10.1007/s10853-008-2711-110.1007/s10853-008-2711-1 ↗
26. 10.1016/S0032-3861(99)00839-310.1016/S0032-3861(99)00839-3 ↗
27. 10.3390/ma1221349610.3390/ma12213496 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2008.12.00610.1016/j.jmbbm.2008.12.006 ↗
29. 10.3390/polym1304060810.3390/polym13040608 ↗
30. 10.1351/pac19723101011310.1351/pac197231010113 ↗
31. 10.1177/875608791453356310.1177/8756087914533563 ↗
32. 10.1002/047001114910.1002/0470011149 ↗
33. 10.1080/03602559.2011.57829710.1080/03602559.2011.578297 ↗
34. 10.5604/12303666.119661610.5604/12303666.1196616 ↗
35. 10.1177/089270571561685610.1177/0892705715616856 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.seppur.2015.03.06010.1016/j.seppur.2015.03.060 ↗
37. Kaviarasi A · Int J Chem Sci · 2018 · 16 · 296
38. 10.3390/polym1201022410.3390/polym12010224 ↗