Comparative study on low velocity impact behavior of natural hybrid and non hybrid flexible thermoplastic based composites

Abstract

The current study attempts to evaluate the low-velocity impact (LVI) behavior of jute and banana fiber-based hybrid and non hybrid green composites. The proposed composites are fabricated using compression moulding method with variety of positioning of layers namely jute-rubber-jute-rubber-jute (JRJRJ), banana-rubber-banana-rubber-banana (BRBRB), jute-rubber-banana-rubber-jute (JRBRJ) and banana-rubber-jute-rubber-banana (BRJRB). Thus developed composites are subjected to LVI testing using conical and hemispherical shaped impactor in drop weight impact testing machine and different impact velocities of 5 m/s, 10 m/s and 15 m/s. Based on the ability of the proposed composites to absorb energy, coefficient of restitution (CoR), energy loss percentage (ELP), and failure behaviour, the suggested flexible composites’ performances are assessed. The study reveals that JRJRJ composite exhibits better energy absorption capability and BRBRB exhibits least energy absorption capability compared to its counterparts. The damage study reveals that hemispherical impactor leads to more damage area due to its larger contact area whereas, conical impactor results in local penetration. Results reveals that inclusion of jute fiber as reinforcement results in better LVI properties compared to banana fiber. It is also clear that the presence of a compliant matrix improves energy absorption and damage resistance in flexible composites.

Keywords

Jute banana hybrid composite low velocity impact energy absorption

Introduction

To shield the target from impact loads, armour made of flexible materials is frequently utilised.^1–3 The flexible materials are made up of woven textiles formed of fibres. The energy absorption of such materials has been extensively evaluated using the experimental and analytical techniques.^4–13 Out of the different mechanisms, one in particular may have a greater influence depending on a number of variables, such as the yarn’s material properties,^14,15 the projectile’s form^16,17 and constraints.^18–20

Polymer-based matrices are used to reinforce the fibre to create a class of composites known as polymer matrix composites (PMCs). The impact behaviour of the PMCs varies depending on the type of matrices used to reinforce the woven fabric. The PMCs exhibit different mechanical and damage behaviour depending on the type of matrix used.²¹ In their comparative investigation, Vieille et al.^22,23 indicated that the greatest ratio of dissipated energy is provided by carbon/epoxy based PMC. Additionally, they demonstrated that carbon/PPS’s energy dissipation upon impact was nearly equal to that of carbon reinforced epoxy based composite. The research done by Lee et al.²⁴ make the case that stiff composites can withstand more energy than compliant composites. However, Gopinath et al.²⁵ demonstrated that composites which are compliant in nature outperform rigid composites as energy absorbers. Wang et al.²⁶ developed PMCs making use of matrices of four varieties and assessed for their impact behaviour. The obtained results supported the claim made by Gopinath et al.²⁵ indicating that compliant composite can absorb more energy and deform more than stiffer composites. Matrix employed in PMCs controls how much deformation occurs, which has an influence on local strain and impact resistance. Numerous researchers are investigating the type of damage that occurs in a composite developed using thermoset (TS)^27–32 and thermoplastic (TP)^22,33–39 matrices. It is found that composites making use of TS matrix results in more damage compared to TP composites.³³

It is crucial to pick the reinforcement and matrix of composites carefully in order to get the appropriate impact characteristics. It is clear from the studies done so far that TP is preferable over TS for enhancing the impact resistance of composites.³⁷ Although, stiff composite offers intriguing mechanical capabilities, its impact behaviour is negatively impacted by their hardness and rigidity. To improve the impact qualities of the PMCs, it is therefore necessary to take into account the usage of flexible matrices.

Natural rubber, which is compliant, may be used in place of TS matrix. In their comparison investigation, Vishwas et al.⁴⁰ revealed that employing natural elastomer in sandwich composite in the form of core improves the impact response and minimises the amount of the damage when compared to thermoset based composite. Rubber in various forms have been successfully employed in various engineering applications and have proven to be efficient energy absorbers.^41–43 Ahmad et al. have completed a substantial amount of work^44,45 For different combinations of plain and coated textiles, it was discovered that rubber-coated fabrics significantly improve energy absorption by 45%–59% as compared to the neat system. Roy et al.⁴⁶ looked at the Kevlar reinforced rubber composite’s impact behaviour demonstrated that rubber coated cloth absorbs more energy than plain fabric. Stelldinger et al.⁴⁷ conducted experimental and computational analyses of the impact characteristics of composite laminates with integrated EPDM rubber layers which showed that the positioning of EPDM layers had a significant impact on the damage threshold loads. Nowadays, natural fibres (NF) are employed as reinforcement in the composites used in various technical applications instead of synthetic fibres (SFs). The primary benefit of employing NF is that they have superior specific strength, are more ecologically friendly, have better vibration and acoustic qualities, etc.^48–51 Various NFs, including coir, jute, sisal, cotton, and others are available for use. Due of its superior mechanical qualities, jute is the most widely utilised fibre in PMCs out of all the NF now available.⁵²

The study of the impact behaviour of composites may be divided into two primary categories: one is the estimation of the composite’s capacity to absorb energy, and the other is the estimation of the composite’s resistance to damage.⁵³ Due to the fact that the damage generated by low-velocity impact (LVI) is internal and undetectable, it differs significantly from the damage brought on by high-velocity impact (HVI) and might eventually result in catastrophic collapse. The residual characteristics of composites treated to LVI vary according on the type and severity of damage they have sustained.^54–57 Consequently, it is crucial to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the impact-related damage.^27–32

Up to this point, all research on PMCs has been on stiffer composites and have poor impact capabilities, as well as flexible composites for ballistic applications. To the best of the author’s knowledge, no research on the LVI behaviour of compliant composites hybridized using natural fibers along with natural rubber as matrix has been published to date. In the current study, it is examined how LVI loading on hybrid and non-hybrid flexible composites based on jute, banana, and rubber affects energy absorption, CoR, ELP, and damage behaviour when impacted by conical and hemispherical impactor.

Experimentation

Materials and methods

The compliant composite materials are made of woven jute and banana fabrics, sheets of natural rubber, and prepeg made of B-stage cured natural rubber to bond with jute, banana, and rubber sheets together. Go Green Products store in Chennai, India is where you can get the jute and banana cloth. The natural rubber sheets were given by local farmers working on rubber plantations, while the B-stage cured prepeg was bought from Manjunath Tyres in Baikampady, Mangaluru, India. Jute, banana, and natural rubber sheets are stacked in the right order, and then using a compression moulding process at the optimum temperature, they are joined together. Each stack was then placed in between the plates of a compression moulding machine and subjected to a temperature of 138°C for 6.5°min at 25 kg/cm², these parameters being based on the rheological properties obtained earlier.¹² All the produced laminates had a thickness of 10 mm. The produced flexible composite laminates are cut into specimens with a dimension of 150 × 150 mm. Figure 1 depicts the procedures necessary to create flexible composite laminates. Table 1 predicts the density of the proposed composites along with the weight percentage of constituent fibers.

Figure 1.

Steps involved in manufacture of flexible composites.

Table 1.

Density of proposed composites and weight percentage of constituent fibers.

Proposed composites	Density (Kg/m³)	Jute (wt%)	Banana (wt%)
JRJRJ	1118.8	10	0
BRBRB	1005.4	0	8
JRBRJ	1107.6	7	2
BRJRB	1018.7	3	5

In this study, natural rubber with a Mooney viscosity of 65 was used. The constituents used in the rubber compound are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Formulation of rubber compound.

Ingredients	Loading (phr)
Natural rubber	100
Carbon black	55
Zinc oxide	5
Calcium carbonate	35
Spindle oil	15
Sulphur	2
Volcacit	0.7

The proposed rubber compound was compounded on a two-roll mill and cured under a hydraulic press. The rheometer results are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Rheometer graph.

Table 3 provides the properties of jute and banana fiber used in present study.

Table 3.

Physical and mechanical properties.

Fiber	Diameter (μm)	Density (g/cm³)	Tensile strength (MPa)	Tensile modulus (GPa)	% of elongation	Ref.	Cost (USD/Kg)⁵⁸
Jute	25–250	1.3–1.49	390–800	13–27	1.1–1.5	59	0.35
Banana	95–245	0.75	161	8.5	2	60	0.1

LVI testing

The LVI testing of the suggested flexible composites is carried out using drop weight impact testing equipment with conical and hemispherical shaped impactors as shown in Figures 3 and 4 according to ASTM D7136 standard. The LVI testing facility is equipped with rebounding arresting system.

Figure 3.

LVI testing arrangement.

Figure 4.

Conical and hemispherical impactors.

The weight of the impactor assembly is 8.09 kg, and the impactors’ diameter and height are 18 mm and 50 mm, respectively. The impact testing was performed with specimens in the specimen holder of the impact machine at three different heights of impact to get impact velocities of 5 m/s, 10 m/s, and 15 m/s. Impact energy as a consequence is 101.12 J, 404.5 J, and 910.125 J, respectively. The experiment was conducted in a temperature-neutral environment. The impactor’s drop height was altered to achieve the various impact energies. The stored energy of the impactor increases as the height of the drop rises. After being released from a specified height, the impactor assembly’s potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.

Results and discussions

Absorption of energy

An examination of energy-time traces is presented with the help of schematic energy-time graph as shown in Figure 5 from which the absorbed and elastic energies are derived during low velocity impact study.

Figure 5.

Schematic of typical energy-time graph obtained during low velocity impact.

During an impact event, out of the total energy of impact, some amount of energy gets dissipated by the specimen in the form of damage formation. This is referred to as the absorbed energy. From the moment of contact (t = 0 s), the impactor delivers its kinetic energy to the specimen, out of which some amount of energy is stored within the specimen in the form of elastic deformation and the remaining is dissipated mainly by development of damage and negligible amount of energy is dissipated through friction, sound, and heat. Once the impactor completely transfers its kinetic energy to the specimen, the entire kinetic energy of the impactor is converted into elastic strain energy and stored in the specimen. The curve then shows a declining trend during which the stored elastic energy is returned back to the impactor until separation. The final energy values correspond to the energy absorbed by the specimen.⁶¹

At varied velocities of impact at 5 m/s, 10 m/s, and 15 m/s resulting in impact energies of 101.12 J, 404.5 J, and 910.125 J, suggested compliant composites were exposed to LVI. The suggested flexible composites’ impact characteristics are summarised in Table 4 and were achieved at various impact energy.

Table 4.

Energy absorption of compliant composites.

Compliant composite	Type of impactor	Energy (J)			Energy absorption ratio (E_a/E_i) in %
Compliant composite	Type of impactor	Impact	Elastic	Absorbed	Energy absorption ratio (E_a/E_i) in %
JRJRJ	Hemispherical	101.12	92.53	8.59	8.49
		404.5	327.65	76.85	19
		910.12	618.89	291.23	32
	Conical	101.12	91.5	8.5	8.4
		404.5	336.61	68.39	16.9
		910.12	612	288	16.9
BRBRB	Hemispherical	101.12	95.06	6.06	6
		404.5	360	44.49	11
		910.12	773.61	136.51	15
	Conical	101.12	95.2	4.8	4.74
		404.5	360	40	9.88
		910.12	783	117	12.85
JRBRJ	Hemispherical	101.12	92.61	8.51	8.42
		404.5	340.59	63.91	15.8
		910.12	695.7	214.42	29.56
	Conical	101.12	92.525	7.475	7.39
		404.5	347.6	52.4	12.9
		910.12	664.2	235.8	25.9
BRJRB	Hemispherical	101.12	94.8	6.32	6.25
		404.5	355.32	49.18	12.16
		910.12	761.96	148.16	16.28
	Conical	101.12	94.33	5.67	5.6
		404.5	352	48	11.86
		910.12	760.5	139.5	15.32

It has been discovered that regardless of the order of stacking, the ability of the compliant composites to absorb energy rises with enhancement in impact energy. For the purpose of comparison, Figure 6 shows the variance in energy absorption of the suggested composites at various energy levels and when affected by various impactors.

Figure 6.

Energy absorption behaviour of proposed composites at different impact energies when impacted by hemispherical and conical shaped impactors.

According to Figure 6, proposed flexible composites taken into consideration are sensitive to the order of stacking. No matter the stacking order taken into account, the absorption of energy by the compliant composites is nonlinear, indicating that the compliant composite’s plies are susceptible to perforation and that the residual energy, particularly at impact energies of higher values, declines. It can be seen that the energy absorption at given impact energy is highest in case of JRJRJ flexible composite followed by JRBRJ, BRJRB and BRBRB. Thus it can be concluded that the flexible composite having jute as reinforcement results in better energy absorption compared to the composite having banana fiber as reinforcement. Considering the hybrid composites, it can be seen that the hybrid composite having jute at the impact side exhibits better energy absorption compared to the hybrid composite having banana on the impact side. Hence jute is a better choice as reinforcement compared to banana fiber. The energy absorption of JRJRJ when impacted by hemispherical impactor at 910.12 J is 2.13 times greater than the energy absorpbed by BRBRB under same conditions. When we compare JRJRJ with the better energy absorber in case of hybrid composite that is JRBRJ, the energy absorbed by JRJRJ when impacted by hemispherical impactor at 910.12 J is 1.36 times more compared to JRBRJ under same conditions. The similar trend is observed in case of conical shaped impactor too.

Coefficient of restitution

The plastic deformation associated with both bodies makes it difficult to determine the velocity of the body following a collision between two bodies when the linear momentum equation is simply solved. As a result, the Coefficient of Restitution (CoR) is made use of. It is defined as the ratio of residual to impact velocity as shown in equation (1) and it ranges between zero to one. In real-world applications, CoR has a value between 0 and 1.^62,63

C o R = \frac{v_{r}}{v_{i}}

(1)

Where,

v_{r}

and

v_{i}

, respectively, are the residual and starting velocities. Ignoring the resistance offered by air, as stated in the literature,^64–66 when the impactor is forced to descend on the composite laminate from height “h”, equation (1) is made use of to calculate the CoR.

Typically, energy is lost during an impact event, and equation (2) is used to get the energy loss percentage (ELP).

E L P = (1 - C o R^{2}) x 100

(2)

Table 5 lists the computed velocity of impact, residual velocity, CoR, and ELP.

Table 5.

Coefficient of restitution (CoR) and energy loss percentage (ELP).

Compliant composite	Impactor shape	Energy (J)			Velocity		CoR	ELP
Compliant composite	Impactor shape	Impact	Elastic	Absorbed	V_i (m/s)	V_r (m/s)	CoR	ELP
JRJRJ	Hemispherical	101.12	92.53	8.59	5	4.78	0.96	8.49
		404.5	327.65	76.85	10	9.00	0.90	19.00
		910.12	618.89	291.23	15	12.37	0.82	32.00
	Conical	101.12	91.5	8.5	5	4.76	0.95	9.51
		404.5	336.61	68.39	10	9.12	0.91	16.78
		910.12	612	288	15	12.30	0.82	32.76
BRBRB	Hemispherical	101.12	95.06	6.06	5	4.85	0.97	5.99
		404.5	360	44.49	10	9.43	0.94	11.00
		910.12	773.61	136.51	15	13.83	0.92	15.00
	Conical	101.12	95.2	4.8	5	4.85	0.97	5.85
		404.5	360	40	10	9.43	0.94	11.00
		910.12	783	117	15	13.91	0.93	13.97
JRBRJ	Hemispherical	101.12	92.61	8.51	5	4.78	0.96	8.42
		404.5	340.59	63.91	10	9.18	0.92	15.80
		910.12	695.7	214.42	15	13.11	0.87	23.56
	Conical	101.12	92.525	7.475	5	4.78	0.96	8.50
		404.5	347.6	52.4	10	9.27	0.93	14.07
		910.12	664.2	235.8	15	12.81	0.85	27.02
BRJRB	Hemispherical	101.12	94.8	6.32	5	4.84	0.97	6.25
		404.5	355.32	49.18	10	9.37	0.94	12.16
		910.12	761.96	148.16	15	13.72	0.91	16.28
	Conical	101.12	94.33	5.67	5	4.83	0.97	6.71
		404.5	352	48	10	9.33	0.93	12.98
		910.12	760.5	139.5	15	13.71	0.91	16.44

The CoR and ELP obtained for the various impact conditions of the proposed flexible composites are in supportive of the energy absorption trends obtained earlier and supports that JRJRJ absorbs better energy compared to its counterparts and also, the composite with jute on impact side is better energy absorber compared to the composite with banana on impact side. At any impact energy taken into consideration, the CoR for various stacking sequences of the proposed flexible composite is in the order BRBRB > BRJRB > JRBRJ > JRJRJ. This shows that the impactor bounces back more when it hits BRBRB because there is more energy remaining after the impact than there is in the other impactors, resulting in lesser absorption of energy by BRBRB compared to counterparts. Similarly, JRJRJ minimises the rebounding of an impactor to a larger level, and so has more energy absorbing capabilities than the other configurations. The results of energy absorption corroborate this argument.

When an impactor is struck to JRJRJ, its kinetic energy is dissipated to a higher amount than its counterparts because the majority of the impactor’s kinetic energy is converted to absorbed energy in the case of JRJRJ. ELP rises with increasing impact energy for each stacking sequence considered in the order JRJRJ > JRBRJ > BRJRB > BRBRB. As a result, ELP research shows that JRJRJ absorbs more energy than its competitors.

Force-time history

The force-time history for the proposed flexible composites at an impact energy of 910.12 J is presented in Figure 7.

Figure 7.

Force-time graphs for proposed flexible hybrid composites.

The trends for all proposed flexible composite under different energy levels remains the same with variation in peak load and are tabulated in Table 6. The force gradually increases initially and drops down at a particular point which can be due to the tearing of the composite. The curve again tends to increase up to the peak force and after which it starts to reduce.

Table 6.

Critical force and peak force of the proposed flexible composites.

Proposed Composites	Critical force (N)	Peak force (N)
JRJRJ	989	6984
BRBRB	72	686
BRJRB	94	695
JRBRJ	254	2001

In the force-time curve, a smoothing process has been carried out to remove the fluctuations. A linear increase in the impact force is found out until a point where a drop in force value is observed. This drop in force value indicates a stiffness change of the composite due to damage initiation and is known as critical force (P_Critical). Thus, the ability of the composite to resist damage is measured by P_Critical.⁶⁷

Beyond the critical force, the impact force behavior can be associated with the development of damage in the composite. It is observed that there is no force perturbation after impact damage initiation force. Instead, the force curve immediately raises up to the peak value. This can be related to the absence of delamination kind of damage within the proposed flexible composite. It is worth noting that delamination, which is a dominant mode of failure in conventional stiff composites,⁶¹ has been got rid off in the proposed flexible composites. Hence, the proposed flexible composite can be said to have higher delamination resistance.

Peak force is an indication of load-bearing capacity of the material. The variation in the peak force of the flexible composites at different impact energies considered in the present study is shown in Table 6. It can be seen that the peak force of JRJRJ is high at any impact energy considered compared to its counterparts indicating JRJRJ needs more amount of force to initiate the damage compared to the other three stacking sequences and thus exhibits higher resistance to damage with maximum energy absorption. Also, it is found that the force required to initiate the first damage is more in case of JRJRJ followed by JRBRJ, BRJRB and BRBRB. This shows that the stacking sequence plays a major role in determining the damage resistance and energy absorption of the proposed flexible composites. It can be observed that the contact time of the impactor with the specimen is constant at all the three impact energy levels considered in the present study. This trend is in agreement with the finding reported by Feraboli et al.⁶⁸

Damage study

Tested samples using the drop weight impact setup at high impact energy are taken for damage analysis using Image-J software. When the impactor impacts the composite with high impact energy, it damages the composite significantly. Damaged samples impacted by both hemispherical and conical impactors at impact velocities of 5, 10, and 15 m/s are shown in Figure 8. From the figures, it is observed that the damaged area is more when impacted by hemispherical impactor compared to the conical impactor. Local penetration is seen in case of conical impactor as the area of contact is lesser than the hemispherical impactor. In all cases, the area of the damage is more for a hemispherical impactor than the conical impactor. This indicates that energy absorbed is more when a hemispherical impactor is used. Thus, the more the contact area, the more energy is absorbed. From the four damage figures, indentation and deformation are formed in the composites without tearing and breaking of matrix and fibers for both hemispherical and conical impactors.

Figure 8.

Damaged samples of JRJRJ at different impact velocities and impactors.

It is clear that when composite materials are struck by various impactor types, the nature of the damage that results varies. When struck by the hemispherical impactor, both composites show damage of the blunt indentation variety. However, when struck with a conical impactor, the same composite materials show damage that resembles a sharp puncture. When the laminate is struck with a hemispherical impactor as opposed to a conical-shaped impactor, it is clear that the damaged area is larger.

Conclusions

Present work investigated the low-velocity impact response of jute, banana, and their hybrid composite with natural rubber as a matrix in experimental method by two different impactors, that is, Conical, Hemispherical.

• Jute fibre, banana fibre, and natural rubber were effectively combined to create a unique flexible composite.

• It is revealed that absorbed energy is nonlinear independent of layering order, indicating that the layers in the flexible compliant composite are vulnerable to puncture and the elastic energy, particularly at higher impact energy, falls.

• The experimental analysis concludes that as impact energy increases, the energy absorbed by all composites (JRJRJ, JRBRJ, BRJRB, and BRBRB) increases without complete damage.

• JRJRJ composite absorbs the most energy, and the BRBRB composite absorbs the least. The JRBRJ and BRJRB composite absorb energy that’s in between the pure fiber composite.

• Jute appears to be the better reinforcement compared to banana fiber for flexible composites subjected to LVI applications.

• The investigation of CoR and ELP for all three stacking sequences at various impact energy reveals that CoR and ELP differ in the following order: BRBRB > BRJRB > JRBRJ > JRJRJ and JRJRJ > JRBRJ > BRJRB > BRBRB, BRBRB which has the highest CoR, gives the impactor the maximum rebound/residual velocity, suggesting that it sustains less damage and absorbs less energy than JRJRJ. The fact that JRJRJ has the greatest ELP means that the impactor lost the majority of its kinetic energy when it hit JRJRJ, and that this kinetic energy loss was turned into absorbed energy by the JRJRJ flexible composite.

• It is found that the peak force of JRJRJ is high at any impact energy considered compared to its counterparts indicating JRJRJ needs more amount of force to initiate the damage compared to the other three stacking sequences and thus exhibits higher resistance to damage with maximum energy absorption

• Puncture-type damage brought on by the tearing mechanism dominates the damage in the suggested flexible composite. In JRJRJ, the damage is more extensive. In comparison to stiff composites, the suggested flexible composite does not experience catastrophic failure, and delamination is not seen in the proposed flexible composites.

• When struck by a hemispherical impactor rather than a conical impactor, the composite is more severely damaged. This shows contact area between the composites and the impactor plays a dominant role in the area of the damage.

• As a result, the suggested flexible composites might be a possible material for absorbing energy and functioning as a sacrificial structure like cladding to protect the core structural components such as an automobile’s bumper, the body of an armour vehicle, and so on.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Vishwas Mahesh

References

Roylance

Wang

. Penetration mechanics of textile structures. Cambridge: Massachusetts Inst of Tech, 1979.

Shim

VPW

Guo

Tan

VBC

. Response of woven and laminated high-strength fabric to oblique impact. Int J Impact Eng 2012; 48: 87–97.

Khodadadi

Liaghat

Vahid

, et al. Ballistic performance of Kevlar fabric impregnated with nanosilica/PEG shear thickening fluid. Compos B Eng 2019; 162: 643–652.

Mamivand

Liaghat

. A model for ballistic impact on multi-layer fabric targets. Int J Impact Eng 2010; 37: 806–812.

Yang

Chen

. Study of energy absorption and failure modes of constituent layers in body armour panels. Compos B Eng 2016; 98: 250–259.

Mahesh

Joladarashi

Kulkarni

. Damage mechanics and energy absorption capabilities of natural fiber reinforced elastomeric based bio composite for sacrificial structural applications. Def Technol 2020; 17: 161–176.

Mahesh

Joladarashi

Kulkarni

. An experimental investigation on low-velocity impact response of novel jute/rubber flexible bio-composite. Compos Struct 2019; 225: 1–12.

Mahesh

Joladarashi

Kulkarni

. Influence of thickness and projectile shape on penetration resistance of the compliant composite. Def Technol 2021; 17: 245–256. DOI: 10.1016/j.dt.2020.03.006

Mahesh

Joladarashi

Kulkarni

. Comparative study on ballistic impact response of neat fabric, compliant, hybrid compliant and stiff composite. Thin-Walled Struct 2021; 165: 107986.

10.

Rajkumar

Mahesh

Joladarashi

, et al. A novel flexible green composite with sisal and natural rubber: investigation under low-velocity impact. J Nat Fibers 2022; 19: 11696–11707.

11.

Mahesh

Joladarashi

Kulkarni

. A comprehensive review on material selection for polymer matrix composites subjected to impact load. Def Technol 2020; 17: 257–277.

12.

Mahesh

Joladarashi

Kulkarni

. An experimental study on adhesion, flexibility, interlaminar shear strength, and damage mechanism of jute/rubber-based flexible “green” composite. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2019; 35: 1–28.

13.

Mahesh

Joladarashi

et al. Experimental study on two-body and three-body abrasive wear behaviour of jute-natural rubber flexible green composite. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2021; 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1177/08927057211062559.

14.

Wang

Yuan

, et al. Experimental and computational investigation of confined laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy. Spectrochim Acta B 2016; 126: 44–52.

15.

Chu

Ha-Minh

Imad

. A numerical investigation of the influence of yarn mechanical and physical properties on the ballistic impact behavior of a Kevlar KM2 ® woven fabric. Compos B Eng 2016; 95: 144–154.

16.

Nilakantan

Wetzel

Bogetti

, et al. A deterministic finite element analysis of the effects of projectile characteristics on the impact response of fully clamped flexible woven fabrics. Compos Struct 2013; 95: 191–201.

17.

Hudspeth

Chu

Jewell

, et al. Effect of projectile nose geometry on the critical velocity and failure of yarn subjected to transverse impact. Text Res J 2016; 87: 953–972.

18.

Nilakantan

Gillespie

JW,

Jr . Ballistic impact modeling of woven fabrics considering yarn strength, friction, projectile impact location, and fabric boundary condition effects. Compos Struct 2012; 94: 3624–3634.

19.

Zeng

Shim

VPW

Tan

VBC

. Influence of boundary conditions on the ballistic performance of high-strength fabric targets. Int J Impact Eng 2005; 32: 631–642.

20.

Chu

Min

Chen

. Numerical study of inter-yarn friction on the failure of fabrics upon ballistic impacts. JMADE 2017; 115: 299–316.

21.

Khodadadi

Liaghat

Reza

, et al. High velocity impact behavior of kevlar/rubber and Kevlar/epoxy composites: a comparative study. Compos Struct 2019; 216: 159–167.

22.

Vieille

Casado

Bouvet

. About the impact behavior of woven-ply carbon fiber-reinforced thermoplastic- and thermosetting-composites: a comparative study. Compos Struct 2013; 101: 9–21.

23.

Vieille

Casado

Bouvet

. Influence of matrix toughness and ductility on the compression- after-impact behavior of woven-ply thermoplastic- and thermosetting- composites: a comparative study. Compos Struct 2014; 110: 207–218.

24.

Lee

Walsh

Won

, et al. Penetration failure mechanisms of armor-grade fiber composites under impact. J Compos Mater 2001; 35: 1605–1633.

25.

Gopinath

Zheng

Batra

. Effect of matrix on ballistic performance of soft body armor. Compos Struct 2012; 94: 2690–2696.

26.

Wang

Hazell

Shankar

, et al. Impact behaviour of dyneema ® fabric-reinforced composites with different resin matrices. Polym Test 2017; 61: 17–26.

27.

Hitchen

Kemp

RMJ

. The effect of stacking sequence on impact damage in a carbon fibre/epoxy composite. Composites 1995; 26: 207–214.

28.

Schoeppner

Abrate

. Delamination threshold loads for low velocity impact on composite laminates. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 2000; 31: 903–915.

29.

Symons

. Characterisation of indentation damage in 0/90 lay-up T300/914 CFRP. Compos Sci Technol 2000; 60: 391–401.

30.

Karakuzu

Okutan

. The response of laminated composite plates under low-velocity impact loading. Compos Struct 2003; 59: 119–127.

31.

Mitrevski

Marshall

Thomson

, et al. The effect of impactor shape on the impact response of composite laminates. Compos Struct 2005; 67: 139–148.

32.

Ravandi

Teo

Tran

LQN

, et al. Low velocity impact performance of stitched flax/epoxy composite laminates. Compos B Eng 2017; 117: 89–100.

33.

Dan-Jumbo

Leewood

Sun

. Impact damage characteristics of bismaleimides and thermoplastic composite laminates. West Conshohocken, PN: ASTM, 1989.

34.

Srinivasan

Jackson

Smith

, et al. Characterization of damage modes in impacted thermoset and thermoplastic composites. J Reinf Plast Compos 1992; 11: 1111–1126.

35.

Davies

Cantwell

. Fracture of glass/polypropylene laminates: influence of cooling rate after moulding. Composites 1994; 25: 869–877.

36.

Shyr

T-W

Pan

Y-H

. Impact resistance and damage characteristics of composite laminates. Compos Struct 2003; 62: 193–203.

37.

Arikan

Sayman

. Comparative study on repeated impact response of E-glass fiber reinforced polypropylene & epoxy matrix composites. Compos Part B 2015; 83: 1–6.

38.

Boria

Scattina

Belingardi

. Impact behavior of a fully thermoplastic composite. Compos Struct 2017; 167: 63–75.

39.

Bensadoun

Depuydt

Baets

, et al. Low velocity impact properties of flax composites. Compos Struct 2017; 176: 933–944.

40.

Vishwas

Joladarashi

Kulkarni

. Investigation on effect of using rubber as core material in sandwich composite plate subjected to low velocity normal and oblique impact loading. Sci Iran Trans Mech Eng 2019; 26: 897–907.

41.

Wang

. Analysis and inversion of contact stress for the finite thickness neo-hookean layer. J Appl Mech 2018; 85: 1–9.

42.

Tubaldi

Mitoulis

Ahmadi

. Comparison of different models for high damping rubber bearings in seismically isolated bridges. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2018; 104: 329–345.

43.

Khodadadi

Liaghat

Ahmadi

, et al. Numerical and experimental study of impact on hyperelastic rubber panels. Iran Polym J 2019; 28: 113–122.

44.

Hassim

Ahmad

Yunus

, et al. Puncture resistance of natural rubber latex unidirectional coated fabrics. J Ind Text 2012; 42: 118–131.

45.

Ahmad

Yunus

Ahmad

, et al. Effect of fabric stitching on ballistic impact resistance of natural rubber coated fabric systems. Mater Des 2008; 29: 1353–1358.

46.

Roy

Laha

Awasthi

, et al. Multi layered natural rubber coated woven P -aramid and UHMWPE fabric composites for soft body armor application. Polym Compos 2018; 39: 3636–3644.

47.

Stelldinger

Kuhhorn

Kober

. Experimental evaluation of the low-velocity impact damage resistance of CFRP tubes with integrated rubber layer. Compos Struct 2016; 139: 30–35.

48.

Shah

. Natural fibre composites: comprehensive ashby-type materials selection charts. Mater Des 2014; 62: 21–31.

49.

Dicker

MPM

Duckworth

Baker

, et al. Green composites: a review of material attributes and complementary applications. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 2014; 56: 280–289.

50.

Faruk

Bledzki

Fink

, et al. Biocomposites reinforced with natural fibers: 2000–2010. Prog Polym Sci 2012; 37: 1552–1596.

51.

Ahmad

Choi

Park

. A review: natural fiber composites selection in view of mechanical, light weight, and economic properties. Macromol Mater Eng 2015; 300: 10–24.

52.

Célino

Fréour

Jacquemin

, et al. The hygroscopic behavior of plant fibers: a review. Front Chem 2014; 1: 1–12.

53.

Quaresimin

Ricotta

Martello

, et al. Energy absorption in composite laminates under impact loading. Compos Part B Eng 2013; 44: 133–140.

54.

Tan

Watanabe

Iwahori

, et al. Effect of stitch density and stitch thread thickness on compression after impact strength and response of stitched composites. Compos Sci Technol 2012; 72: 587–598.

55.

Giannopoulos

Theotokoglou

Zhang

. Impact damage and CAI strength of a woven CFRP material with fire retardant properties. Compos B Eng 2016; 91: 8–17.

56.

Tan

Falzon

Chiu

LNS

, et al. Predicting low velocity impact damage and compression-after-impact (CAI) behaviour of composite laminates. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 2015; 71: 212–226.

57.

Bibo

Hogg

. Influence of reinforcement architecture on damage mechanisms and residual strength of glass-fibre/epoxy composite systems. Compos Sci Technol 1998; 58: 803–813.

58.

Yahaya

Sapuan

Leman

, et al. Selection of natural fibre for hybrid laminated composites vehicle spall liners using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Appl Mech Mater 2014; 564: 400–405.

59.

Sahu

Gupta

. Sisal (Agave sisalana) fibre and its polymer-based composites: a review on current developments. J Reinf Plast Compos 2017; 36: 1759–1780.

60.

Yan

Chouw

Jayaraman

. Flax fibre and its composites - a review. Compos B Eng 2014; 56: 296–317.

61.

Tan

Watanabe

Iwahori

. Effect of stitch density and stitch thread thickness on low-velocity impact damage of stitched composites. Compos A Appl Sci 2010; 41: 1857–1868.

62.

Aryaei

Hashemnia

Jafarpur

. Experimental and numerical study of ball size effect on restitution coefficient in low velocity impacts. Int J Impact Eng 2010; 37: 1037–1044.

63.

Chatterjee

. Rigid body collisions: some general considerations, new collision laws and some experimental data. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1997.

64.

Minamoto

Kawamura

. Effects of material strain rate sensitivity in low speed impact between two identical spheres. Int J Impact Eng 2009; 36: 680–686.

65.

Weir

Tallon

. The coefficient of restitution for normal incident, low velocity particle impacts. Chem Eng Sci 2005; 60: 3637–3647.

66.

Wong

Daniel

Rongong

. Energy dissipation prediction of particle dampers. J Sound Vib 2009; 319: 91–118.

67.

Caprino

Carrino

Durante

, et al. Low impact behaviour of hemp fibre reinforced epoxy composites. Compos Struct 2015; 133: 892–901.

68.

Feraboli

Kedward

. A new composite structure impact performance assessment program. Compos Sci Technol 2006; 66: 1336–1347.