| Literature DB >> 35567028 |
Ulisses Oliveira Costa1, Lucio Fabio Cassiano Nascimento1, Wendell Bruno Almeida Bezerra1, Pamela Pinto Neves1, Noemi Raquel Checca Huaman2, Sergio Neves Monteiro1, Wagner Anacleto Pinheiro1.
Abstract
Graphene oxide (GO) functionalized curaua fiber (CF) has been shown to improve the mechanical properties and ballistic performance of epoxy matrix (EM) nanocomposites with 30 vol% fiber. However, the possibility of further improvement in the property and performance of nanocomposites with a greater percentage of GO functionalized CF is still a challenging endeavor. In the present work, a novel epoxy composite reinforced with 40 vol% CF coated with 0.1 wt% GO (40GOCF/EM), was subjected to Izod and ballistic impact tests as well as corresponding fractographic analysis in comparison with a GO-free composite (40CF/EM). One important achievement of this work was to determine the characteristics of the GO by means of FE-SEM and TEM. A zeta potential of -21.46 mV disclosed a relatively low stability of the applied GO, which was attributed to more multilayered structures rather than mono- or few-layer flakes. FE-SEM images revealed GO deposition, with thickness around 30 nm, onto the CF. Izod impact-absorbed energy of 813 J/m for the 40GOCF/EM was not only higher than that of 620 J/m for the 40CF/EM but also higher than other values reported for fiber composites in the literature. The GO-functionalized nanocomposite was more optimized for ballistic application against a 7.62 mm projectile, with a lower depth of penetration (24.80 mm) as compared with the 30 vol% GO-functionalized CF/epoxy nanocomposite previously reported (27.43 mm). Fractographic analysis identified five main events in the ballistic-tested 40GOCF/EM composed of multilayered armor: CF rupture, epoxy matrix rupture, CF/matrix delamination, CF fibril split, and capture of ceramic fragments by the CF. Microcracks were associated with the morphological aspects of the CF surface. A brief cost-effective analysis confirmed that 40GOCF/EM may be one of the most promising materials for personal multilayered ballistic armor.Entities:
Keywords: Izod impact; ballistic performed; curaua fiber; epoxy matrix; graphene oxide functionalization; nanocomposite
Year: 2022 PMID: 35567028 PMCID: PMC9105903 DOI: 10.3390/polym14091859
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Izod impact-absorbed energy for different fiber-reinforced composites.
| Fiber/Matrix | Amount of Fiber | Izod Impact- | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Curaua/Epoxy | 40 | 620 | PW |
| GO-functionalized Curaua/Epoxy | 40 | 813 | PW |
| Ramie/Epoxy | 30 | 567 | [ |
| Mallow/Epoxy | 30 | 499 | [ |
| Tucum/Epoxy | 40 | 216 | [ |
| Sedge/Epoxy | 30 | 63 | [ |
| Fique/Epoxy | 40 | 222 | [ |
| Ramie/Polyester | 30 | 594 | [ |
| Curaua non-woven/Epoxy | 30 | 433 | [ |
| Banana Fiber/Polyester | 30 | 265 | [ |
| Curaua/Polyester | 30 | 190 | [ |
| Jute/Epoxy | 30 | 426 | [ |
| GO Ramie/Epoxy | 30 | 60 | [ |
| GO Glass Fiber/Epoxy | 40 | 290 | [ |
PW—Present Work.
Figure 1Front view of the MAS target after the ballistic test. The second layer corresponds to composite plates: (a) 40CF/EM and (b) 40GOCF/EM.
Backface signature of NFLs composites and Kevlar™, all in 10 mm thick plate, composing the MAS second layer, as well as 25 mm thick Dyneema™ plate, completely replacing the MAS target. Plates ballistic tested against 7.62 mm N.I.J [44] level III ammunition.
| Material in Ballistic Armor for Protection against Level III Ammunition | Backface Signature (mm) | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 40 vol% curaua fiber/epoxy composite | 24.8 | PW |
| 40 vol% GO-functionalized curaua fiber/epoxy composite | 24.8 | PW |
| 30 vol% Guaruman fiber/epoxy composite | 27.5 | [ |
| 30 vol% pineapple leaf fiber (PALF)/epoxy composite | 26.6 | [ |
| 30 vol% curaua fiber/epoxy composite | 24.3 | [ |
| 30 vol% curaua fiber/polyester composite | 22.2 | [ |
| 30 vol% jute mat/polyester composite | 24.7 | [ |
| 30 vol% coir fiber/epoxy composite | 31.6 | [ |
| 30 vol% sisal fiber/ Polyester composite | 22.3 | [ |
| 30 vol% bamboo fiber/epoxy composite | 18.2 | [ |
| 30 vol% sugarcane bagasse/epoxy composite | 39.8 | [ |
| 10 mm Kevlar™ as the MAS second layer | 21.3 | [ |
| 25 mm Dyneema™ plate (complete MAS) | 41.5 | [ |
PW—Present Work.
Figure 2Graphical representation of the depth of penetration of backface signature results.
Weight and cost analysis for a 150 × 150 mm MAS with aramid 30 vol% or 40 vol% curaua fiber epoxy composite.
| Armor Component | Volume (cm3) | Density (g/cm³) | Weight | Price per kg | Component Cost (US Dollars) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Al2O3-ceramic tile | 225 | 3.89 | 0.74 | 2.60 | 1.94 |
| 30CF/EM | 225 | 1.05 | 0.24 | 25.91 | 6.22 |
| 40CF/EM | 225 | 1.03 | 0.23 | 25.91 | 5.96 |
| GO | - | - | 0.000083 | 31.240 a–174,000 b | 2.59–14.44 |
| 40GOCF/EM | 225 | 1.03 | 0.23 | 28.50–40.35 | 6.56–9.28 |
| Kevlar™ | 168.75 | 1.09 | 0.18 | 72.50 | 13.05 |
| Total MAS weght with 30CF/EM | 1.23 | Total cost with 30CF/EM composite (US dollars) | 21.21 | ||
| Total MAS weight with 40CF/EM composite (kg) | 1.22 | Total cost with 40CF/EM composite (US dollars) | 20.95 | ||
| Total MAS weight with 40GOCF/EM nanocomposite (kg) | 1.22 | Total cost with 40GOCF/EM composite (US dollars) | 21.55–24.27 | ||
| Decrease in weight (%) | 0.81 | Decrease in cost (%) | 1.24 | ||
| Decrease in weight (%) | 0.00 | Increase in cost (%) | 2.86–15.85 | ||
ahttps://www.go-graphene.com (accessed on 19 April 2022), b https://www.acsmaterial.com (accessed on 19 April 2022).
Figure 3(a) SEM image of the dispersion of GO flakes on a silicon substrate; (b) TEM image of a GO film with two areas of different hues; (c) EDS of both selected areas of the GO film (d,e) SAED of areas 1 and 2 respectively, the diffraction points are marked with Miller-Bravais indices; (f) Intensity profile and interplanar distances of the indexed planes through the diffraction points indicated in the panel of areas 1 and 2.
Figure 4High-magnification FE-SEM image of GO-coated curaua fiber.
Figure 5EELS analysis of GO at (a) and carbon core-loss spectra (b) probed at two different areas, 1 and 2, indicated in Figure 3.
Figure 6Fracture surface of the MAS front ceramic hexagonal tile.
Figure 7Fracture surface by SEM analysis: (a) Fiber rupture, matrix rupture, delamination, capture of the fragments, and fibrils split fiber mechanisms, (b) microcrack propagation in the composite matrix.