Composite Structures 234 (2020) 111690

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Study on the stab resistance mechanism and performance of the carbon, T

glass and aramid fiber reinforced polymer and hybrid composites
⁎
Jinsil Cheon, Minwook Lee, Minkook Kim
Institute of Advanced Composite Materials, Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), 92 Chudong-ro, Bongdong-eup, Wanju-gun, Jeonbuk 55324, Republic of
Korea

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this study, stiff stab-resistant materials for riot shields were developed by using fiber reinforced polymer
Stab resistance composites (FRPs) made of three different types of fibers: carbon, glass and p-aramid. The stab resistance of the
Hybrid composite FRPs were investigated with respect to the thickness and types of reinforced fibers according to the U.S.A.
Micro-CT National Institute of Justice (NIJ) standard. Hybrid composites were then developed to compensate for the
Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP)
weaknesses of each FRP, and the stacking sequences were optimized. The mechanisms of the stab resistance and
the blade penetration for each FRP were investigated via static stab compressive tests. Additionally, the failure
mode and fracture topography after the stab resistance tests were obtained using a micro-CT scanner.

1. Introduction
Over the centuries, general armor made of wooden and metallic
materials has been used for personal protective equipment (PPE) [1].
With the increased severity in gun control legislation, both police of-
ficers and the public are easily exposed to the threat of stabbing by
incisive weapons. Thus, stab-resistant PPE has been gradually issued
[2].
There are two types of stab-resistant PPE: stiff and flexible [3]. For
both the flexible and stiff types of stab-resistant PPE, high performance
fibers, such as p-aramid fiber and ultra high molecular weight poly-
ethylene (UHMWPE) fiber, have been issued to reduce the weight of the
PPE and improve the agility of the user [4,5]. Flexible PPE, which in-
cludes vest, gloves, pants, and other clothes, mainly requires a light
weight and comfortableness when worn. Commercial stab-resistant
vests are made of 20–50 sheets of multiple layers of p-aramid or
UHMWPE fiber fabrics [6,7]. Research on stab-resistant PPE has been
highly concentrated on flexible PPE based on the shear thickening fluid
and fabric laminates, with few studies having reported on stiff stab-
resistant materials [8–10].
Stiff PPE, which includes riot shields, have been typically fabricated
with polymeric, metallic and ceramic plates [11,12]. Until now, riot
shields fabricated with polycarbonate or asbestos plates mainly protect
from clubbing and thrown objects [13]. However, these materials are
easily destroyed and penetrated by a stabbing assault [14]. These low
mechanical problems can be solved by using high-performance fiber
reinforced polymer composites (FRPs). To obtain the rigidity for stiff
structures such as shields and helmets, the interfacial bonding strength
between the fiber and the matrix of the composite is crucial. However,
the main disadvantage of UHMWPE-reinforced polymer composites is
that they have poor interfacial bonding strength [15,16].
For this reason, most research on stab-resistant FRP has focused on
and used aramid fiber reinforced polymers (AFRP). Woven p-aramid
fabrics have been frequently used for PPE because of their excellent
toughness, tensile properties and cutting resistance [17]. Knife pene-
tration occurs at two distinctive steps [18]. First, the knife tip pene-
trates the surface of the target material. Then, the inner object is cut by
the knife’s edge. Consequently, the penetration and cutting by the knife
blade should be considered to improve the stab resistance. However,
both p-aramid fiber and AFRP have relatively poor compressive
strength and hardness.
Carbon fiber reinforced polymer composites (CFRP) have been in-
creasingly developed using novel techniques because of their out-
standing properties, which include a high specific strength and stiffness,
design flexibility, etc. [19]. When CFRP is used as stiff-type stab-re-
sistant PPE, the increase in hardness helps to restrict the penetration of
the knife tip, which is the first step of the stab mechanism [18] during
stabbing.
In this study, stab-resistant FRPs were fabricated with three dif-
ferent types of fibers: carbon, glass and p-aramid fibers. The stab re-
sistance tests were performed according to the U.S.A. National Institute
of Justice (NIJ) standard 0115.00. The stab resistances of the FRPs were

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: minkook@kist.re.kr (M. Kim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111690
Received 30 August 2019; Received in revised form 25 October 2019; Accepted 6 November 2019
Available online 09 November 2019
0263-8223/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Cheon, et al. Composite Structures 234 (2020) 111690

investigated with respect to the thicknesses and types of reinforced fi-
bers. Additionally, hybrid composites were developed, and a stacking
sequence was optimized to compensate for the weaknesses of each FRP.
The use of two types of fibers in a suitable combination can not only
improve the mechanical properties of composite, but also result in
performance synergy on fracture and flexural toughness [20,21]. The
mechanism of the stab resistance and blade penetration through the
FRP was investigated via static compressive tests using the stab blade.
Finally, the failure mode and fracture topography after the stab re-
sistance tests were obtained using a micro-CT scanner.
2. Experimental
2.1. Materials and fabrication
In this paper, three different types of plain woven fibers, namely, E-
glass (1180 plain weave, SK chemical, Republic of Korea) para-aramid
(SNA1622, SAENAL Tech Tex, Republic of Korea) and carbon (C120
plain weave, SK chemical, Republic of Korea), were used to reinforce-
ment the stab-resistant composites. Diglycidyl ether of bisphenol-A type
epoxy resin (YD-128, Kukdo Chemical, Republic of Korea) was used as
the matrix with a polyoxypropylene diamine-type hardener (D-230,
Kukdo Chemical, Republic of Korea). The composite specimens were
fabricated via the hand lay-up method with the standard autoclave
process for the epoxy resin (30 mins dwelling at 80 °C and 2 h curing at
125 °C under 7 bars). 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 24 layers for each fiber fabric
were laminated and are represented as follows: [C6] to [C24] for the
CFRP, [A6] to [A24] for the AFRP and [G6] to [G24] for the glass fiber
reinforced polymers (GFRP).
Carbon/aramid and carbon/glass hybrid composites were also fab-
ricated with the same materials and process. For the hybrid composites,
total 16 plies of carbon and aramid or carbon and glass fabric were
laminated in a 1:1 ratio (8 plies each) with following stacking sequence:
[C8/A8], [C4/A8/C4], [A8/C8], [A4/C8/A4] for carbon/aramid hybrid
composites and [C8/G8], [C4/G8/C4], [G8/C8] and [G4/C8/G4] for
carbon/glass hybrid composites. [C8/A8] indicates that the carbon layer
was on the blade falling top side and the aramid layer was on the back
side. CFRP with stacking sequence [C16] was also fabricated to compare
with the hybrid composites results of stab resistance test and three-
point bending test.
Table 1 shows the properties [22] and parameters of each reinforced
fiber and fabricated composite. The specimens were cut using a water
jet cutting system (T500-3015, TOPS waterjet, Republic of Korea).
2.2. Stab resistance test
The stab resistance test of the FRP specimens was performed based
on U.S.A. National Institute of Justice (NIJ) standard 0115.00 [23]
using a drop tower impact test machine (CEAST 9350, Instron, U.S.A.).
Table 1
Parameters of the each reinforced fibers and fabricated composites.
Properties of the reinforced fabrics
The specimens were located on the backing materials, which consisted
of four layers of 6 mm neoprene sponge, a single layer of 30 mm closed-
cell polyethylene foam and two layers of 6 mm rubber. For the stab
resistance test, an engineered knife blade P1 impactor, which has one
cutting edge, was manufactured using a BS4659 BO1 tool steel (West
Yorkshire Steel Co Ltd, U.K.) according to the NIJ standard. The total
length of the blade was 100 mm, the length of the cutting edge was
33 mm, and the thickness of the blade was 2 mm. Fig. 1 shows a
schematic diagram of the stab resistance test setup and the knife blade
P1 impactor. The impact energy of the stab resistance tests was de-
termined to be 24 J based on protection level 1 of the NIJ standard. To
satisfy protection level 1, the penetration depth should be less than
7 mm under an impact energy of 24 J. The total drop mass and impact
velocity of the stab resistance test were 2.6 kg and 4.31 m/s, respec-
tively. During the stab resistance test, the velocity, force, displacement
and energy of the impact were measured using a CEAST data acquisi-
tion system (DAS 64 K, Instron, U.S.A.), and the penetration depth was
calculated from the time-displacement results.
2.3. Static stab compressive test and three-point bending test
To analyze the stab penetration process in the FRPs, a static stab
compressive test was also performed using a material testing machine
(Instron 5567A, Instron, U.S.A.). The knife blade, P1, was mounted on
the compressive zig and the FRP specimen was placed below the blade,
as shown in Fig. 2. Then, the knife was penetrated into the FRP spe-
cimen with a compressive speed of 10 mm/min. The FRP specimen was
held using a donut-shaped component 25 mm in diameter with 5 mm
thick jigs, which were fabricated with glass fiber reinforced polymer
composite to prevent bending.
The flexural strength and stiffness of the FRPs and the hybrid
composites were measured by a three-point bending test following
ASTM D790. The span length and width were six times and twice the
thickness of each FRP, respectively. The width of each specimen was
fixed to 13 mm and the span to depth ratio was 16:1. According to
ASTM D790, the test speed was calculated with the thickness and span
length of each FRP. For three-point bending test specimens of the CFRP,
AFRP and GFRP, 16 layers of each fabrics were laminated identically to
the hybrid composites.
2.4. Damage detection with the Micro-CT
To identify the damaged area and volume of each FRP after the stab
resistance test, the penetrated area and the volumetric geometry for the
FRP were detected using a micro-CT scanner (SKYSCAN 1172, Bruker,
U.S.A.). The specimens for the damaged FRP were prepared in a square
shape (20 mm × 20 mm) to improve the resolution of the micro-CT
images. The medium camera pixels (2 k × 1 k) had a 9.0 μm resolution
with a source power of 10 W, and the specimens were rotated from 0° to
180° to capture the CT images every 0.4°. For the CFRP, AFRP and
carbon/aramid hybrid composites, the CT images were captured
without filtering X-rays. However, the CT images for the GFRP were
captured with an Al-filter because the penetration of X-rays made de-
tection insufficient.

Fabric E-glass fiber para-Aramid Carbon fiber 3. Results and discussion

(GF) fiber (AF) (CF)
Tensile stiffness (GPa) 69 124 230
Tensile strength (MPa) 3500 3600 3600 3.1. Single fiber reinforced polymer composite
Woven type Plain Plain Plain
Areal density (g/m2) 318 220 209 3.1.1. Stab resistance
Thread Count (per mm2) 1.3 × 1.3 1.6 × 1.6 0.5 × 0.5 The performances of the stab resistance of the carbon, glass and
Properties of the fiber reinforced polymer composite aramid FRPs were evaluated by NIJ standard with an impact energy of
Average properties GFRP AFRP CFRP 24 J. The stab resistance was determined by the penetration depth of
Thickness per layer (mm) 0.24 0.26 0.22
the blade impactor beyond the FRPs [24]. In other words, a lower pe-
Areal density per layer 426 337 313
(g/m2) netration depth represented a better stab resistance. Fig. 3 shows the
penetration depth of the FRPs with respect to the thickness and the

2
J. Cheon, et al. Composite Structures 234 (2020) 111690

100 mm

12 mm 38 mm

8º
9º
15º 15 mm
2 mm
NIJ Standard-0115.00 (P1-Type Blade)
33 mm

(a)

Impact Direction P1 Type Blade

(24 J)

Composite

Neoprene Sponge
(4 Plies, 24 mm)

Polyethylene Foam
(1 Plies, 30 mm)
Rubber
(2 Plies, 12 mm)

(b)
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of (a) knife blade P1 and (b) the stab resistance test set-up.

reinforced fiber type. Negative (minus) values indicated that the P1
blade impactor was blocked and could not penetrate the FRP specimen.
With the same thicknesses and areal densities, the CFRP had the most
favorable stab resistance.
The GFRP had a relatively better stab resistance in terms of thick-
ness compared to the AFRP. However, in terms of the areal density, the
AFRP had a relatively better stab resistance due to high density of the
glass fiber, as shown in Fig. 3-(b). To satisfy protection level 1 of the NIJ
standard (penetration depth < 7 mm), at least 12 plies of carbon fab-
rics or 15 plies of glass and aramid fabrics should be laminated. Based
on these thicknesses, the CFRP should be thicker than 2.6 mm, the
AFRP should be thicker than 3.9 mm, and the GFRP should be thicker

10 mm/min
Donut-shaped Steel Jig

Bolt

Composites

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of static stab compressive test.

3
J. Cheon, et al. Composite Structures 234 (2020) 111690

Specimens
-10 Thickness (mm) -10
Areal density (g/cm2)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9
0 0

10 NIJ level 1 < 7 mm 10

Penetration depth (mm)

Penetration depth (mm)

NIJ level 1 < 7 mm

20 20

30 30
GFRP
GFRP
40 40
CFRP
CFRP
50 50
AFRP
AFRP
60 60

70 70

(a) (b)
Fig. 3. The penetration depth of the FRPs with respect to the thickness and the reinforced fiber type; (a) function of the thickness, (b) function of the areal density.

than 3.2 mm. increased and the knife blade impactor penetrated the FRP specimens.
The impact force-displacement curves of the stab resistance tests are The impact force required for penetration increased proportionally to
shown in Fig. 4. The initial values of the impact force fluctuated due to the specimen thickness. If the force required to penetrate the specimen
the vibration caused by the compression of the soft backing materials. was greater than the maximum impact force that can be exerted by the
After the backing materials were fully compressed, the impact force drop weight impact test, the specimen was not penetrated. The

1.4 [C24] 1.4

[C18] [G24]
1.2 1.2 [G18]
[C15]
Impact force (kN)

1 1
Impact force (kN)

0.8
[G15]
0.8 [C12]
[G12]
[C9]
0.6 0.6
[G9]
0.4 [C6] 0.4
[G6]
0.2 0.2

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

(a) (b)
1.4
[A24]
1.2 [A18]
Impact force (kN)

1 [A15]

0.8 [A12]
[A9]
0.6

0.4 [A6]

0.2

0
0 20 40 60 80
Displacement (mm)

(c)
Fig. 4. The impact force-displacement curves of the stab resistance tests; (a) CFRP, (b) GFRP and (c) AFRP.

4
J. Cheon, et al. Composite Structures 234 (2020) 111690

3 [C24] 3

2.5 2.5

Compressive force (kN)

Compressive force (kN)

2 [C18] 2
[G24]
1.5 [C15] 1.5
[G18] [G9]
[C12]
[G6]
1 1 [G15]
[G12]
0.5 [C9] 0.5
[C6]
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

(a) (b)
3
[A24]
2.5
Compressive force (kN)

[A18]
2

1.5
[A15]

1 [A12]

0.5 [A9]
[A6]
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm)
(c)
Fig. 5. The static stab compressive test results with respect to the reinforced fiber and thickness of FRP; (a) CFRP, (b) GFRP and (c) AFRP.

maximum impact force was determined by the impact test setup and the
mechanical properties of the FRP specimens. The maximum impact
force of the CFRP, AFRP and GFRP under the NIJ standard test were
1260 N, 1130 N and 1078 N, respectively. If the blade impactor pene-
trated the FRP specimen, the maximum displacement was increased by
the length of the penetrated blade.
3.1.2. Mechanism of the knife penetration
To analyze the mechanism of the blade penetration through the
FRP, static stab compressive tests were performed. Fig. 5 shows the
static stab compressive test results with respect to the reinforced fiber
and thickness of the FRP. The mechanism of the FRP stab resistance can
be clearly explained by the static compressive and gradual penetration
of the blade.
The blade penetration process though the FRP can be divided into 5
steps, as shown in Fig. 6: (1) Surface hardness and flexural stiffness
dominant step: the fibers on the surface begin being cut by the blade tip
and the FRP specimen is globally banded by the compressive load of the
blade – the stab compressive load sharply increases by the flexural
stiffness and hardness of the FRP. (2) Compressive properties dominant
step: the lower part compresses out of the plane direction – the stab
compressive load also increases to reach the maximum point. (3) Cut-
ting resistance dominant step: the blade impactor penetrates the FRP by
cutting the reinforced fiber using the cutting edge. The bending and
compressive stress out of plane direction are then released by the fiber
cutting, and the stab compressive load is decreased by the stress release
of the cut fiber plies. (4) Cutting resistance dominant step: after the
blade breaks through the FRP, the penetration crack (hole) in the da-
maged area is widened in the in-plane direction by cutting the re-
inforcement using the blade cutting edge. The surrounding parts of the
FRP are pushed by the spine of the blade and compressed in the plane
direction. – The stab compressive load is then increased again. (5)
Friction and residual stress dominant step: The size of the crack and the
damage area is maximized through the ricasso section of the knife.
Then, the body of the blade slides through the penetrated hole of the
FRP – the compressive load then decreases.
Fig. 7 shows the flexural test results of the FRP with respect to the
reinforced fibers. As expected, the CFRP had the highest flexural stiff-
ness and strength, followed by the GFRP and then the AFRP. As the
thickness of the specimen increased, the compressive load also in-
creased equally, but showed different behaviors depending on the type
of reinforced fiber. In particular, the CFRP showed a high increase rate
and value for the compressive load at the beginning of compression, as
shown in steps (1) & (2) in Fig. 6. Because the CFRP has a relatively
high flexural stiffness and strength, the stab compressive load is also
higher than the AFRP and GFRP. In contrast, the AFRP initially showed
a low stab compressive load (similar to the GFRP, even if the tensile
stiffness was much larger than the GFRP) due to the low compressive
properties of aramid fiber [25–27]. However, the AFRP had an espe-
cially high stab compressive load in the later step of the crack and
penetration propagation (steps 3 & 4) due to the abrasion and cutting
resistance of the aramid fibers [28,29] as shown in Fig. 6-(c).
When the first peak value of static stab compressive load in an early
step was higher than the maximum impact force of the stab resistance
test, the FRPs blocking the blade and not being penetrated (penetration
depth < 0). As a result, CFRP has the advantages on high flexural
stiffness, compressive strength and surface hardness in order to prevent
the beginning of blade tip penetration. After penetration begins (pe-
netration depth > 0), the high cutting and abrasion resistance prop-
erties of AFRP help prevent crack propagation and blade penetration

5
J. Cheon, et al. Composite Structures 234 (2020) 111690

3 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Compressive force (kN)

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm)

Tip Penetration Fiber failure

Global Bending Fiber cutting
& failure Fiber cutting
Compressed & load release
(damaged) area
Reinforced Fiber Compressed
In-plane direction
Compressed in Compressed in
Z-direction Z-direction

(1) (2) (3)

Fiber Compressed Slip between

cutting in-plane direction blade & FRP

Increase of
compressed
area

(4) (5)
Fig. 6. The blade penetration and stab resistance mechanism of the FRP.

from the cutting.
3.1.3. Failure mode
Fig. 8 shows images of the top surface, cross-section and bottom
surface of the 15 plies of laminated CFRP – [C15], GFRP – [G15] and
AFRP – [A15] after the stab resistance tests. The penetration depths of
the [C15], [G15] and [A15] were 0.7 mm, 4.6 mm and 6.5 mm, respec-
tively.
The CFRP showed a wide damaged area and brittle failure, and the
carbon fibers were broken by the impact instead of being cut by the
blade. With a smallest penetration depth (0.7 mm), the bottom surface
was also widely fractured by the tensile stress from the impact. The

6
J. Cheon, et al. Composite Structures 234 (2020) 111690

50 Flexural stiffness 800 disking failure mode, as shown in Fig. 8-(c). The aramid fibers were
Flexural strength 700 then torn by the cutting. The deformed area returned from the dishing

Flexural strength (MPa)

Flexural stiffness (GPa)

40 deformation instead of being permanently broken (plugged out).

600
Therefore, the bottom surface of the AFRP showed a closed crack, un-
30 500
like the GFRP.
400 As a result, the CFRP had a better stab resistance with a wide da-
20 300 maged area due to the high flexible properties and surface hardness.
Additionally, the impact energy was dominantly absorbed by tensile
200
10 failure and carbon fiber breakage from the impact. For the AFRP, the
100 impact energy was dominantly absorbed by the aramid fiber cutting,
0 0 therefore the damages were concentrated in narrow area. After the stab
GFRP
1 CFRP
2 AFRP
3 penetration, the AFRP showed better fracture resilience after the stab
impact.
Fig. 7. Flexural stiffness and strength of the FRP with respect to the reinforced
fibers.
3.2. Stab-resistant hybrid composites
broken carbon fibers were pushed by the blade and protruded back to
The CFRP showed the best stab resistance performance, but it also
the bottom surface, as shown in Fig. 8-(a). The GFRP showed a similar
showed a wide brittle damaged area and fiber breakage. The broken
failure mode with the CFRP but it had a narrower damage area, al-
fibers and composite layers protruded over the bottom surface, which
though it was penetrated deeper than the CFRP. The damaged surface
can injure the body inside the stab-resistant FRP structure, even
area underwent shear plugging failure and a penetrated hole was gen-
without penetration of the blade. The CFRP showed impact failure from
erated. Differing from the CFRP, the GFRP bottom surface was cut and
the stab resistance, therefore the performance could be improved by
fractured along the blade, as shown in Fig. 8-(b). Despite the relatively
hybridization with aramid or glass fiber. The toughness of the CFRP
large penetration depth and crack length, the damaged area of the
could be improved by hybridization with glass fiber [30], and a carbon/
AFRP was smaller than that of the CFRP or GFRP. In addition, the top
aramid hybrid composite could improve the ductility and impact en-
surface of the AFRP was finely cut along the blade and experienced
ergy absorption of the CFRP. The brittle fracture mode does not occur in

1 mm 1 mm 1 mm

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 8. Micro CT images of the top surface, cross-section and bottom surface after stab resistance test; (a) CFRP (b) GFRP and (c) AFRP.

7
J. Cheon, et al. Composite Structures 234 (2020) 111690

[G8C8] [G4C8G4] [C4G8C4] [C8G8] [A81C8] [A4C28A4] [C4A38C4] [C84A8]

-0.5 -0.5
0 0
0.5 0.5 Specimens

Penetration depth (mm)

Penetration depth (mm)

1 1
1.5 1.5 Ref. [C16] : 1.38 mm
Ref. [C16]
2 2
2.5 2.5
3 3
3.5 3.5
4 4
4.5 4.5
(a) (b)
Fig. 9. Penetration depth of the hybrid composite by the stab resistance test; (a) carbon/glass hybrid composites, (b) carbon/aramid hybrid composites.

carbon/aramid hybrid composites and the structural stability is main- fibers were laminated on the falling surface of blade, had better stab
tained after the crushing with the impactor [31–33]. resistance performances compared to the CFRP. The hybrid composite
To satisfy protection level 1 of the NIJ standard, a total of 16 plies, 8 with the [C8/A8] and [C4/A8/C4] stacking sequences where carbon fi-
plies of CFRP and AFRP or 8 plies of GFRP, were laminated for the bers were laminated on the falling surface of the blade had a better stab
hybrid composites. The stacking sequences of the carbon/aramid hy- resistance performance compared to the CFRP. Specifically, the [C8/A8]
brid composites were controlled at [A8/C8], [A4/C8/A4], [C8/A8] and hybrid composite had the best stab resistance without penetration. The
[C4/G8/C4], and at [G8/C8], [G4/C8/G4], [C8/G8] and [C4/G8/C4] for hybridized aramid fiber under the CFRP layer increased the impact
the carbon/glass hybrid composites. The thicknesses and areal densities energy absorption and resistance to being cut by the blade.
of the carbon/aramid hybrid composites were 4.25 mm and 5200 g/m2, Additionally, the high surface hardness of the CFRP also prevented the
respectively, and for the carbon/glass hybrid composites they were blade tip from digging into the hybrid composite.
3.25 mm and 5480 g/m2, respectively. However, the hybrid composite with aramid fibers laminated on the
surface had a lower stab resistance performance. If the AFRP layers
3.2.1. Stab resistance of the hybrid composites were located on the inner side (compressive side) of the bending, the
Fig. 9 shows the penetration depth of the carbon/aramid and flexural property was relatively low, as shown in Fig. 10-(b), and the
carbon/glass hybrid composite via the stab resistance test with an im- surface hardness of the hybrid composite was also reduced. Therefore,
pact energy of 24 J. The penetration depth of the CFRP, [C16], was the blade tip easily began to penetrate the hybrid composite.
1.4 mm. The carbon/glass hybrid composite had a lower stab resistance
(higher penetration depth) for all stacking sequences compared to 3.2.2. Failure mode of the carbon/aramid hybrid composites
[C16], even though it was thicker than the CFRP, as shown in Fig. 9-(a). Fig. 12 shows the cross section and bottom surface images of the
The glass fiber had no benefits in mechanical properties, and there was carbon/aramid hybrid composites after the stab resistance tests. The
little difference in fracture mechanism under stab impact. greatest difference between the CFRP and the hybrid composite was the
However, the flexible strength largely decreased by hybridization delamination between the AFRP and CFRP. This delamination further
with glass fiber and aramid, as shown in Figs. 10 and 11. Figs. 10 and absorbed the stab impact energy and mitigated the progression of pe-
11 shows the flexural stiffness & strength and flexural stress–deflection netration cracking by the blade.
curve of the hybrid composites, respectively. The composite with only Moreover, hybridization with the AFRP provided a significant im-
carbon fiber, [C16], showed brittle fracture. In the case of hybrid provement in the damage area and fiber breakage reduction in the
composite, the bending strength decreased drastically however the CFRP, as shown in Fig. 12-(c) and (d). The AFRP reinforced under the
crack did not propagated rapidly and showed ductile fracture. And the CFRP prevented damage of the bottom layer, which was fractured by
flexural toughness of composites were improved by the hybridization. the tensile stress from the impact, and prevented the plugged out
The penetration depth of the carbon/glass hybrid composites were broken carbon fiber from being pushed out by the blade. The AFRP had
higher than CFRP and there was no performance improvement by the a higher cutting and abrasion resistance, and it effectively prevented
hybridization because of the flexural strength decrease. Unlike aramid propagation of the blade crack. However, when the CFRP was on the
fiber, glass fiber had no resistance to cutting and could not obtain hy- bottom layer or the supporting AFRP layer was too thin, the bottom
brid effect to increase stab resistance. CFRP layer was damaged by the impact or the supporting AFRP layer
In case of carbon/aramid hybrid composites, where the carbon was pushed back by the broken CFRP layer, as shown in Fig. 12-(a) and

50 500 50 500
Flexural stiffness Flexural stiffness
Flexural strength
Flexural strength (MPa)

40 400 Flexural strength

Flexural stiffness (GPa)

40 400
Flexural strength (MPa)
Flexural stiffness (GPa)

30 300 30 300

20 200 20 200

10 100 10 100

0 0 0 0
[G81C8] [G4C28G4] [C4G38C4] [C84G8] [A81C8] [A4C28A4] [C4A38C4] [C84A8]

(a) (b)
Fig. 10. Flexural stiffness and strength of the hybrid composites; (a) carbon/glass hybrid composites, (b) carbon/aramid hybrid composites.

8
J. Cheon, et al.
Fig. 11. Flexural stress-deflection curve of the hybrid composites; (a) carbon/glass hybrid composites, (b) carbon/aramid hybrid composites.
(b).
The AFRP layer closed the penetration cracks by reducing the per-
manent destruction of the carbon fibers and restoring it after stab im-
pact. This crack closing by the AFRP could improve its resistance to
repeated stab impacts and maintain the structural stability after the stab
impact.
The carbon/aramid hybrid composite had a better stab resistance
compared to the CFRP and AFRP. For the best stab resistance of the
hybrid composite, CFRP with a high stiffness and hardness should be
located on the surface where the blade falls, and AFRP, which has an
excellent cutting resistance and impact energy absorption, should be
located on the back side. The hybrid composite with this stacking se-
quence [C8/A8] had the best stab resistance performance.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, the stab resistances and blade penetration mechanisms
of FRPs were investigated with respect to the reinforced fibers. As a
result, the CFRP had the most favorable stab resistance compared to the
AFRP and GFRP. To satisfy protection level 1 of the NIJ standard (pe-
netration depth < 7 mm), the CFRP should be thicker than 2.6 mm, the
9
Composite Structures 234 (2020) 111690
AFRP should be thicker than 3.9 mm, and the GFRP should be thicker
than 3.2 mm. The CFRP showed a wide damaged area with fiber
breakage by the impact and the broken fiber protruded due to the
blade. Contrary, the damaged area of the AFRP was relatively narrow
and the main fracture was generated by fiber cutting.
Finally, the stacking sequences of the carbon/aramid and carbon/
glass hybrid composites were optimized to compensate for the weak-
nesses of each fibers. The carbon/aramid hybrid composites, where the
carbon fibers were laminated on the falling surface of blade, had better
stab resistance performances compared to the CFRP. And the hy-
bridization provided a significant improvement in the damage area and
fiber breakage reduction of the CFRP.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
J. Cheon, et al.
1 mm
(a) [A8C8]
1 mm 1 mm
(c) [C4A8C4]
Fig. 12. Cross section and bottom surface micro-CT images of the carbon/aramid hybrid composites after stab resistance with respect to the staking sequences; (a)
[A8C8], (b) [A4C8A4], (c) [C4A8C4], (d) [C8A8] and (e) [C16].
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Korea Institute of Science and
Technology (KIST) institutional Program, National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Korean National Police
Agency and the Ministry of Science and ICT for Police field customized
research and development project (No. 1711096585) and the project
‘Development of integrated body solar module technology and test of
bus vehicle' funded by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy
(Korea, NO. 20183010014300).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111690.
References
[1] Laha A, Majumdar A. Shear thickening fluids using silica-halloysite nanotubes to
improve the impact resistance of p-aramid fabrics. Appl Clay Sci 2016;132:468–74.
[2] Rodriguez-Millan M, Diaz-Alvarez A, Aranda-Ruiz J, Diaz-Alvarez J, Loya JA.
Experimental analysis for stabbing resistance of different aramid composite archi-
tectures. Compos Struct 2019;208:525–34.
[3] Lightweight ballistic composites : military and law-enforcement applications. 2nd
edition. ed. Waltham, MA: Elsevier, 2016.
[4] Chapman R. Smart textiles for protection. OxfordPhiladelphia: Woodhead
Publishing Limited in association with the Textile InstituteWoodhead Publishing in
association with the. Textile Institute 2013.
[5] Zhang TG, Satapathy SS, Vargas-Gonzalez LR, Walsh SM. Ballistic impact response
of Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE). Compos Struct
2015;133:191–201.
[6] Srivastava A, Majumdar A, Butola BS. Improving the impact resistance performance
of Kevlar fabrics using silica based shear thickening fluid. Mater Sci Eng a-Struct
Mater Prop Microstruct Process. 2011;529:224–9.
[7] Hosur MV, Mayo JB, Wetzel E, Jeelani S. Studies on the fabrication and stab re-
sistance characterization of novel thermoplastic-kevlar composites. Adv Struct
Composite Structures 234 (2020) 111690
1 mm
(b) [A4C8A4]
1 mm
(d) [C 8A8] (e) [C 16]
Funct Mater Prot 2008;136:83-+.
[8] Xu Y, Chen XG, Wang Y, Yuan ZS. Stabbing resistance of body armour panels im-
pregnated with shear thickening fluid. Compos Struct 2017;163:465–73.
[9] Kedzierski P, Gieleta R, Morka A, Niezgoda T, Surma Z. Experimental study of
hybrid soft ballistic structures. Compos Struct 2016;153:204–11.
[10] Arora S, Majumdar A, Butola BS. Structure induced effectiveness of shear thickening
fluid for modulating impact resistance of UHMWPE fabrics. Compos Struct
2019;210:41–8.
[11] Hunsicker A. Behind the shield : anti-riot operations guide. Boca Raton: Universal-
Publishers; 2011.
[12] Liu WL, Chen ZF, Cheng XW, Wang YW, Amankwa AR, Xu J. Design and ballistic
penetration of the ceramic composite armor. Compos Part B-Eng 2016;84:33–40.
[13] Edwards MR, Waterfall H. Mechanical and ballistic properties of polycarbonate
apposite to riot shield applications. Plast, Rubber Compos 2008;37:1–6.
[14] Kim H, Nam I. Stab resisting behavior of polymeric resin reinforced p-aramid fab-
rics. J Appl Polym Sci 2012;123:2733–42.
[15] Yang YF, Chen XG. Investigation of failure modes and influence on ballistic per-
formance of Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) uni-directional
laminate for hybrid design. Compos Struct 2017;174:233–43.
[16] Lassig T, Bagusat F, Pfandler S, Gulde M, Heunoske D, Osterholz J, et al.
Investigations on the spall and delamination behavior of UHMWPE composites.
Compos Struct 2017;182:590–7.
[17] Mayo JB, Wetzel ED, Hosur MV, Jeelani S. Stab and puncture characterization of
thermoplastic-impregnated aramid fabrics. Int J Impact Eng 2009;36:1095–105.
[18] Hejazi SM, Kadivar N, Sajjadi A. Analytical assessment of woven fabrics under
vertical stabbing – The role of protective clothing. Forensic Sci Int
2016;259:224–33.
[19] Friedrich K, Almajid AA. Manufacturing aspects of advanced polymer composites
for automotive applications. Appl Compos Mater 2013;20:107–28.
[20] Abou El-Mal HSS, Sherbini AS, Sallam HEM. Mode II Fracture Toughness of Hybrid
FRCs. Int J Concr Struct Mater 2015;9:475–86.
[21] Banthia N, Gupta R. Hybrid fiber reinforced concrete (HyFRC): fiber synergy in high
strength matrices. Mater Struct 2004;37:707–16.
[22] Lee DG, Suh NP. Axiomatic design and fabrication of composite structures: appli-
cations in robots, machine tools and automobiles. New York: Oxford University
Press; 2006.
[23] Standard N. 0115.00. Stab resistance of personal body armor. 2000.
[24] Wei RB, Wen Z, Feng L, Li YJ, Zhang WT, Liang YF, et al. Enhancing stab resistance
of thermoset-aramid composite fabrics by coating with SiC particles. J Ind Text
2019;48:1228–41.
[25] Pindera MJ, Gurdal Z, Herakovich CT, Hidde JS, Stabuck JM. Mechanical response
10
J. Cheon, et al. Composite Structures 234 (2020) 111690

of aramid epoxy under tensile, compressive and shear loading. J Reinf Plast Compos
1989;8:410–20.
[26] Andrews MC, Lu D, Young RJ. Compressive properties of aramid fibres. Polymer
1997;38:2379–88.
[27] Andrews MC, Young RJ, Mahy J, Schaap AA, Grabandt O. Compressive behavior of
aramid fiber-reinforced pultruded rods. J Compos Mater 1998;32:893–908.
[28] Wong DWY, Zhang H, Bilotti E, Peijs T. Interlaminar toughening of woven fabric
carbon/epoxy composite laminates using hybrid aramid/phenoxy interleaves.
Compos Part A-Appl Sci Manuf 2017;101:151–9.
[29] Wan M, Li SE, Yuan H, Zhang WH. Cutting force modelling in machining of fiber-
reinforced polymer matrix composites (PMCs): a review. Composites Part a-Appl Sci
Manuf 2019;117:34–55.
[30] Yu HN, Longana ML, Jalalvand M, Wisnom MR, Potter KD. Pseudo-ductility in in-
termingled carbon/glass hybrid composites with highly aligned discontinuous fi-
bres. Compos Part A-Appl Sci Manuf 2015;73:35–44.
[31] Song JH. Pairing effect and tensile properties of laminated high-performance hybrid
composites prepared using carbon/glass and carbon/aramid fibers. Compos Part B-
Eng 2015;79:61–6.
[32] Mahdi E, Sebaey TA. Crushing behavior of hybrid hexagonal/octagonal cellular
composite system: Aramid/carbon hybrid composite. Mater Des 2014;63:6–13.
[33] Kim JS, Yoon HJ, Shin KB. A study on crushing behaviors of composite circular
tubes with different reinforcing fibers. Int J Impact Eng 2011;38:198–207.

11