ARL-TR-7749 ● AUG 2016

US Army Research Laboratory

Mechanical and Impact Characterization of

Poly-Dicyclopentadiene (p-DCPD) Matrix
Composites Using Novel Glass Fibers and
Sizings
by Steven E Boyd

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

 NOTICES

Disclaimers

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the
Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official

endorsement or approval of the use thereof.

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator.
 ARL-TR-7749 ● AUG 2016

US Army Research Laboratory

Mechanical and Impact Characterization of

Poly-Dicyclopentadiene (p-DCPD) Matrix
Composites Using Novel Glass Fibers and
Sizings
by Steven E Boyd
Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the
burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.
Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid
OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

August 2016 Technical Report October 2014–September 2015
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Mechanical and Impact Characterization of Poly-Dicyclopentadiene (p-DCPD)
Matrix Composites Using Novel Glass Fibers and Sizings 5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

Steven E Boyd
5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

US Army Research Laboratory
ATTN: RDRL-WMM-B ARL-TR-7749
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT
A survey of mechanical and impact properties for glass-reinforced polydicyclopentadiene (p-DCPD) matrix composites is
undertaken to assess the suitability of the new resin system as a replacement for existing epoxy-matrix systems. The p-DCPD
resin system has superior thermal stability and intrinsic fracture-toughness properties that are desirable for Army-unique
applications. However, challenges in conventional processing techniques and chemical-sizing compatibility were encountered
during the study. Various novel glass fibers and commercially available fabrics were infused with both p-DCPD resin and SC-
15 epoxy and mechanical and impact testing performed. The key results indicate p-DCPD composites have lower mechanical
and impact performance compared to SC-15 composites due to chemical-sizing incompatibility at the fiber–matrix interface.
Despite efforts to tweak processing and to develop compatible sizings with industry partner Pittsburgh Plate Glass Industries,
the p-DCPD composites had poor interfacial bonding that manifested as significantly lower interlaminar-shear strength. The
main conclusion of this study is this: Given the desirable properties of p-DCPD, a program effort should be undertaken to
develop a chemical sizing that will be 100% compatible with the p-DCPD resin and allow for processing of composites that
have improved or comparable structural—as well as ballistic—properties to epoxy-matrix composites.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
Mechanical testing, impact testing, epoxy, poly-dicyclopentadiene, composites
17. LIMITATION 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:
OF OF Steven E Boyd
ABSTRACT PAGES
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UU 36 410-306-1927
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

ii
Contents

List of Figures iv

List of Tables v

Acknowledgments vi

1. Introduction 1

2. Materials 2
2.1 Fibers and Fabrics 2
2.1.1 Resin Systems 3
2.1.2 Fiber Sizings 3
2.2 Manufacturing of Composites 4
2.3 Fiber Burn-out Results 5
2.4 Mechanical and Impact Testing 6

3. Results and Discussion 9

3.1 Mechanical Testing 9
3.1.1 SBS Testing 9
3.1.2 Flexural Testing 10
3.1.3 Tension Testing 11
3.2 Impact Testing 14
3.2.1 Force-Deflection Curves 15
3.2.2 Damage Progression 18
3.2.3 Damage Visualization 20

4. Conclusion 23

5. References 25

List of Symbols, Abbreviations, and Acronyms 27

Distribution List 28

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

iii
List of Figures
Fig. 1 The low-viscosity VARTM set-up used to manufacture p-DCPD
composites tested in this study ................................................................ 5
Fig. 2 Dynatup 8100 medium-energy drop tower with impact-table fixture
installed ..................................................................................................... 7
Fig. 3 Schematic drawing of impact-table’s fixture supports and location of
impact ........................................................................................................ 8
Fig. 4 Tested SBS samples for visual inspection of failure mode: (left) 7781
E-glass–SC-15, (center) 6781 S2-glass–SC-15, and (right) 6781 S2-
glass–p-DCPD ........................................................................................ 10
Fig. 5 Tested 3-point-bend flexural samples for visual inspection of failure
mode: (left and edge left) 6781 S2-glass–p-DCPD and (right) 6781 S2-
glass–SC-15 ............................................................................................ 11
Fig. 6 Failure modes of satin-weave 6781 S2-glass composites with (left) p-
DCPD matrix and (center and right) SC-15 matrix .............................. 13
Fig. 7 Group of samples tested in tension: (left) biaxial stitched E-glass–p-
DCPD, (center left) biaxial–SC-15, (center right) PPG X2-glass–
Spencer p-DCPD, and (right) PPG X2-glass–Telene p-DCPD ........... 14
Fig. 8 Force-deflection curve for PPG E-glass–SC-15 processed with
VARTM .................................................................................................. 15
Fig. 9 Force-deflection curve for PPG E-glass–p-DCPD process with
VARTM .................................................................................................. 15
Fig. 10 Force-deflection curve for PPG E-glass–SC-15 processed using PA-
VARTM .................................................................................................. 16
Fig. 11 Force-deflection curve for PPG E-glass–p-DCPD processed using PA-
VARTM .................................................................................................. 16
Fig. 12 Force-deflection curve for PPG X2-glass–Telene p-DCPD ................ 17
Fig. 13 Damage progression for PPG E-glass–SC-15 composite processed
with VARTM .......................................................................................... 19
Fig. 14 Damage progression for PPG E-glass–p-DCPD composite process
with VARTM .......................................................................................... 19
Fig. 15 Damage progression for PPG E-glass–SC-15 composite processed using
PA-VARTM ............................................................................................ 19
Fig. 16 Damage progression for PPG E-glass–p-DCPD composite processed
using PA-VARTM .................................................................................. 19
Fig. 17 Damage progression for PPG X2-glass–Telene p-DCPD composite . 20
Fig. 18 Front-face damage for composites (left) PPG E-glass–p-DCPD and
(right) PPG E-glass–SC-15 ................................................................... 20
Fig. 19 Back-face damage for composites (left) PPG E-glass–SC-15
manufactured using standard VARTM and (right) PA-VARTM........ 21

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

iv
Fig. 20 Front- (left) and back- (right) face damage for the PPG X2-glass–
Telene p-DCPD composite .................................................................... 22
Fig. 21 Images of edge damage in p-DCPD composites subject to 4-quadrant
impacts: (top) PPG E-glass–p-DCPD manufactured using standard
VARTM, (center) same composite manufactured using PA-VARTM,
and (bottom) PPG X2-glass–Telene p-DCPD ...................................... 22
Fig. 22 Cross sections of 3 impacted composites: (top) PPG E-glass–p-DCPD,
(center) PPG E-glass–SC-15, and (bottom) PPG X2-glass–Telene p-
DCPD ...................................................................................................... 23

List of Tables
Table 1 Material constituents and sizings for composites used in the current
study .......................................................................................................... 3
Table 2 Volume fractions for p-DCPD composites used in the mechanical
testing ........................................................................................................ 6
Table 3 Fiber burn-out results for p-DCPD composites used in impact testing 6
Table 4 Composite samples tested with low-velocity-impact protocol for
thickness, weight, and areal density ........................................................ 8
Table 5 Short-beam shear strengths and failure modes of SC-15 and p-DCPD
resin composites tested ............................................................................. 9
Table 6 Tension data for SC-15 and p-DCPD composites (“NC”: not
completed)............................................................................................... 12

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

v
Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge Pittsburgh Plate Glass (PPG) for providing many of
the fabrics used in this study and for opening up its Shelby, North Carolina, facility
to assist with the development and manufacture of the X2-glass–Telene p-DCPD
composite panels. Special thanks go to Mr Brian Cornish of PPG, Mr Brian Spencer
of Spencer Composites, and Mr Timothy Collins of Advanced Glassfiber Yarns. I
would like to thank Mr Jim Wolbert, Mr Mike Thompson, and Mr Mike Neblett of
the US Army Research Laboratory for manufacturing, processing, and finishing all
of the composite samples tested for this report as well as performing the fiber-
burnout testing for all composite panels.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

vi
1. Introduction

Whether used as a neat resin or as a matrix material in a fiber-reinforced composite,

epoxy-resin systems have been successfully used in industrial and military
applications for decades. Some important limitations of epoxy composites compared
to more traditional monolithic materials include relatively brittle properties (lower
impact strength, damage tolerance, elongation to failure, and delamination) and
moderate hot/wet glass transition temperature (Tg; ~95°C/85°C). Poly-
dicyclopentadiene (p-DCPD), an aliphatic hydrocarbon resin, has superior impact
properties and toughness, a high hot/wet Tg (>124°C), and good mechanical
properties compared with epoxies.1 This set of desirable properties, especially the
thermal stability, high intrinsic toughness, and resistance to delamination, make the
investigation of p-DCPD resin as a potential matrix material very relevant to Army-
unique applications.

Poly-DCPD is formed by a process known as ring-opening metathesis

polymerization (ROMP).2 Older catalysts for the ROMP reaction include
molybdenum and tungsten and are known to be susceptible to moisture, air, and
other chemicals. The newer ruthenium (Ru)-based catalysts are much less sensitive
and may be used in vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM) in the
fabrication of composites.

There are a number of challenges that had to be addressed or overcome to

manufacture viable p-DCPD composites for testing. By far the largest impediment
was finding a good coupling agent (sizing) to create a good bond between the fiber
and this aliphatic hydrocarbon resin; industry-standard amino silane sizings were
chemically incompatible or failed to create a good bond. Through a congressional
program3 the Army has with Pittsburgh Plate Glass (PPG) Industries, PPG—which
also was tasked with developing a new glass fiber—developed over the course of its
work 3 proprietary sizings that are featured in this report and showed some progress
toward improving the fiber–matrix bond. Another major issue was the sourcing of
the resin system: Previous composite samples were manufactured by Materia, Inc.,
and performed well4; however, Materia would not supply us with resin or catalyst.
Therefore, resin was sourced from Spencer Composites,5 which provided an
Ru-catalyst–p-DCPD-resin system known as ESM-611+. A final hurdle was resin
pot life and viscosity. The ESM-611+ resin system we sourced had sufficient pot
life to infuse a large composite panel or structure (in contrast to many p-DCPD
resins, which gel in seconds or minutes) but had a very low viscosity of
approximately 20 centipoise (cP) at room temperature, making resin retention in

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

1
the part under vacuum difficult. As a result the standard VARTM process was
modified and yielded good panels without dry voids or resin-starved composites.

This report focuses on mechanical and low-velocity-impact characterization of

various glass-fiber-reinforced p-DCPD matrix composites. The composites tested
may seem disparate but represent what was manufactured considering the
challenges already discussed. Whenever possible, a companion composite featuring
the same fiber architecture and sizing was manufactured using a 2-phase, toughened
epoxy resin system by Applied Poleramic Inc.,6 and tested for comparison. Though
2-D, 24-oz woven roving fabrics are of most interest, satin weaves were acquired
and tested based on the recommendation of Brian Spencer of Spencer Composites,
from which we sourced the p-DCPD resin. One p-DCPD composite uses a
proprietary p-DCPD formulation provided by Telene SAS7 directly to PPG. This
panel was made by US Army Research Laboratory (ARL) technicians J Wolbert
and M Thompson at PPG in Shelby, North Carolina, and provided for testing. Due
to limited amounts of both glass fabric and resin, only tension, flexural, and short
beam shear (SBS) testing was conducted; further, impact testing was conducted on
only 5 composites.

2. Materials

2.1 Fibers and Fabrics

The fabric reinforcements used in this study are listed in Table 1. Four 24-oz,
5 × 5 woven rovings were used: 3 were supplied by PPG (E-glass, X1-glass, and
X2-glass) and one from Advanced Glassfiber Yarns (AGY),8 S2-glass. The X1-
and X2-glass fibers are experimental fibers developed as a key goal of the PPG
congressional program.3 They were of higher strength and elongation than the
industry-standard E-glass and were comparable in properties to the S2-glass fiber.
These fibers were woven at PPG into fabrics and supplied to ARL in rolls. The
AGY fabric is a 24-oz, 5 × 5 woven roving of S2-glass fiber that is also provided
as a 50-inch-wide roll.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

2
 Table 1 Material constituents and sizings for composites used in the current study

Fabric/fiber Fiber sizing Polymer matrix

JPS Glass 6781 S2-glass 8-h satin weave JPS 9827 Both SC-15 and p-DCPD
(Amino Silane)
Hexcel 7781 E-glass 8-h satin weave Amino-Silane Both SC-15 and p-DCPD
AGY S2-glass 24-oz woven roving AGY 933 Both SC-15 and p-DCPD
PPG E-glass 24-oz woven roving (washed) PPG 1383 Both SC-15 and p-DCPD
PPG X1-glass 24-oz woven roving PPG 1383 p-DCPD only
(washed and unwashed)
PPG X2-glass 24-oz woven roving PPG T-74 p-DCPD (ESM-611+ and
PPG Telene)
PPG E-glass biaxial stitched PPG 2026 Both SC-15 and p-DCPD

Two satin weaves were also used in this study: the E-glass 8-harness Hexcel 77819
and the S2-glass, 8-harness 6781 from JPS Glass.10 These 2 fabrics were
incorporated into the study after consultation with Brian Spencer. Spencer
Composites has manufactured panels using the satin weave fabrics and its
proprietary p-DCPD resin, ESM 611+. Toward the end of the study, ARL requested
PPG provide us with a fabric sized with PPG 2026 sizing. ARL received a biaxial,
stitched E-glass fabric roughly equivalent in areal weight to the 24-oz woven roving
materials.

2.1.1 Resin Systems

The resin systems (and fiber sizings) used are also listed in Table 1. Where possible,
the composites tested were manufactured using both p-DCPD and an epoxy for
direct comparison. The standard epoxy-resin system used at ARL is a 2-phase,
toughened epoxy, SC-15, manufactured by Applied Poleramic Inc.6 The p-DCPD
resin system from Spencer Composites,5 ESM-611+, is an Ru-catalyst system.
Composites using Telene7 p-DCPD were manufactured exclusively at PPG and
provided to ARL as large panels and also use a Ru-based catalyst. The ESM-611+
was purchased by ARL for its exclusive use courtesy of Spencer Composites. The
Telene p-DCPD resin system was specially developed for use by PPG with its
experimental-fibers program and was not provided to ARL; however, PPG
manufactured panels to ARL specifications that were tested at ARL “as received”.

2.1.2 Fiber Sizings

There are a number of fiber sizings used in this study on the various glass fibers.
Most of the sizings are compatible with epoxy-matrix chemistry and are proprietary
to the fabric manufacturers. The sizings on the 2 satin weave materials are amino-
silane type. The AGY sizing is a Type 933 inorganic, high-temperature sizing. The
2 sizings applied to PPG fabrics supplied to ARL, 1383 and 2026, are understood

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

3
to be compatible with epoxy-matrix chemistry. It is important to note here the
explanation of “washed” versus “unwashed” in Table 1. An attempt was made to
remove the fiber film former (a polyester) and the amine type sizing (1383), which
is known to be incompatible with p-DCPD, using an acetone wash. After interaction
with and recommendations from ARL, PPG developed the Type T-74 sizing (one
of 3), which is an attempt to render the sizing more compatible with the unique
chemistry of p-DCPD resin.

2.2 Manufacturing of Composites

All composites in this study were manufactured using vacuum-assisted resin
transfer molding (VARTM). Depending on the resin system, the standard VARTM
procedure had to be modified to produce a viable part. The 2 alterations of standard
VARTM used in this study are low-viscosity resin VARTM and press-assisted
VARTM (PA-VARTM).11
Standard VARTM procedures include laying up a part on a nonreactive,
impermeable surface (a “tool” surface such as glass or metal caul plate), bagging
the part—allowing for an inlet for resin and outlet for vacuum—and compacting
the setup under vacuum and infusing the part (fabric lay-up) with resin. The
standard VARTM procedure works well with resin systems that have a viscosity
between 200 and 5000 cP and a pot life of at least 20 min. The chosen epoxy system,
SC-15, infused quite well with this technique and produced good, low-void-content
composite parts. SC-15 resin was infused and cured until gelled at 60 °C (140 °F)
and then post-cured at 121 °C (250 °F) for at least 4 h.

The p-DCPD resin system has a very low viscosity of less than 20 cP (versus
300 cP of SC-15).6 For a standard VARTM setup, if the viscosity of the infused
resin is too low, the vacuum will quickly draw off the resin through the outlet
leaving the fabric resin-starved, even if the outlet is sealed with clamping pliers. To
mitigate this, a special low-viscosity VARTM procedure was developed by ARL’s
Wolbert to increase infusion time, reduce vacuum pull, and contain the p-DCPD
resin once it infused the part. Figure 1 shows 2 images of the modified setup. Not
pictured are the screw compressor clamps that served as a fine adjust to reduce the
resin-flow volume at the inlet and cut off vacuum pull at the outlet, both in an effort
to increase infusion time. The addition of a metal window-frame resin barrier or
“reservoir” was added to enclose the part to contain the resin and make it more
difficult for the vacuum to siphon off. The reservoir barrier was placed around the
part and was very successful along with the secondary bag at containing the p-
DCPD resin. It was eventually made to manufacture 12-inch × 12-inch × 0.25-inch
(30.5-cm × 30.5-cm × 0.64-cm) panels and thicker 16-inch × 16-inch × 0.5-inch

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

4
(40.6-cm × 40.6-cm × 1.3-cm) panels. One final difference noted in Fig. 1 is the
use of only peel-ply cloth to lead from part to outlet, which is noticeably set back
again in an effort to slow the vacuum pull on the resin.

Inlet

Resin barrier

Fig. 1 The low-viscosity VARTM set-up used to manufacture p-DCPD composites tested in
this study

Despite these efforts, resin infusion took only a minute using the ESM-611+ p-
DCPD resin after which primary (inner) bag vacuum was closed with the
compressor clamp. The part was left overnight to gel and then post-cured at 121 °C
(250 °F) for 4 h. Composites made with p-DCPD were noted for the pungent
residual odor indicating unreacted polymer. Eventually the cure and post-cure
procedure were changed to increase the degree of cross-linking in the resin. The
new cure cycle comprised a temperature hold at 60 °C (140 °F) until gel; a 4-h
post-cure to 121 °C (250 °F); and a final post-cure of 177 °C (350 °F) for 2 h. The
new cure cycle yielded composites that have reduced residual odor, but did not
completely eliminate it.

Composites containing the Telene p-DCPD proprietary resin system were

manufactured at PPG’s Shelby, North Carolina, facility by ARL personnel in a
single trip using a hybrid method incorporating elements of low-viscosity VARTM.
The cure and post-cure of the Telene p-DCPD panels was the same as that used at
ARL. No additional post-cure or processing was completed after the panels were
received by ARL and they were tested “as received”.

2.3 Fiber Burn-out Results

Once the p-DCPD composite panels were manufactured, small samples were taken
from the unused fringes for fiber burn-out testing. Three to 4 samples of each panel
measuring 1-inch square were weighed dry and wet and then heated in a crucible
to 565 °C to burn off the polymer matrix. The remaining glass fibers plus crucible
were weighed to determine the residual glass weight. Table 2 reports the composite
volume fractions for the fibers (Vf), matrix (Vm), and voids (Vv), all of which were
calculated according to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

5
International standards D792 and D2734.12,13 The results are for the composite
panels tested for mechanical properties. According to Table 2, the modified VARTM
process was largely successful in manufacturing panels with low void content;
however, a few panels (highlighted in yellow) had higher void fractions than desired.

Table 2 Volume fractions for p-DCPD composites used in the mechanical testing

Composite Panel ID Vf (%) Vm (%) V (%)

6781–SC-15 4019 48.0 50.0 2.0
6781–p-DCPD 3099 46.4 50.7 3.5
7781–SC-15 3073 48.7 50.6 0.7
7781–p-DCPD 4029 46.3 52.7 1.1
X1 (not washed)–p-DCPD 4094 55.4 42.6 2.0
X1 (washed)–p-DCPD 5014 57.0 34.8 5.7
E (washed)–SC-15 5001 55.4 44.2 0.4
E (washed)–p-DCPD 4095 52.9 46.3 0.8
S2-933–SC-15 5004 47.8 51.5 0.7
S2-933–p-DCPD 5012 41.0 48.6 7.6
E (Biaxial)–SC-15 5126 59.5 40.0 0.5
E (Biaxial)–p-DCPD 5124 58.1 40.8 1.1
X2–p-DCPD 5170 39.2 59.0 1.8
X2–PPG Telene p-DCPD PPG no.4 43.0 ~55.0 ~2.0

Fiber burn-outs were also conducted on the composite panels used in the impact
study and results are presented in Table 3. Yellow highlights the composite with
the highest void fraction.

Table 3 Fiber burn-out results for p-DCPD composites used in impact testing

Composite Panel ID Vf (%) Vm (%) Vv (%)

E–DCPD VARTM 4093 48.4 50.8 0.8
E–SC-15 VARTM 4090 48.9 50.5 0.6
E–DCPD PA VARTM 5029 49.0 47.0 4.0
E–SC-15 PA VARTM 5034 52.2 47.3 0.5
X2–PPG Telene p-DCPD PPG no. 4 43.0 ~55.0 ~2.0

The “PA VARTM” description in Table 3 actually refers to a variation of the

standard VARTM process in which the glass fiber-layers are compacted by both
vacuum bag and by means of a press to increase the fiber-volume fraction. The
press-assisted VARTM manufacturing process is discussed in detail by Holmes
et al.11 Again, most of the composite panels were successfully manufactured.

2.4 Mechanical and Impact Testing

All composite panels manufactured for the mechanical testing had finished
dimensions of approximately 11 inch × 11 inch × 0.25 inch (28 cm × 28 cm ×
0.6 cm). This provided a small panel from which only a few samples could be
obtained for a few types of mechanical test. Tension, flexural, and short beam shear

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

6
(SBS) testing were selected to provide a measure of interlaminar shear and tensile
properties and strengths. The tension and flexural samples were identical at 11 inch
× 1 inch × 0.25 inch (28 cm × 2.5 cm × 0.6 cm). The tension samples were tested
according to ASTM D303914 with strains measured using digital-image correlation
(DIC) with a single-camera, 2-D setup. Flexural testing was conducted according
to ASTM D79015 using a recommended 40:1 aspect ratio for the span. SBS testing
samples were 1.5 inch × 0.5 inch × 0.25 inch (3.8 cm × 1.2 cm × 0.6 cm) and were
tested according to ASTM D2344.16

Impact testing was performed on all the composites listed in Table 3 using the ARL-
developed 4-quadrant, low-velocity-impact protocol. The method and its
development and analysis are discussed in detail by Emerson et al., and Boyd
et al.17–20 ; therefore, only a very brief description follows. Impact testing of thick-
section composite panels is conducted using a medium-energy Dynatup 8100 drop
tower, as shown in Fig. 2. The impact sample’s dimensions are 16 inch × 16 inch ×
0.5 inch (40.6 cm × 40.6 cm × 1.2 cm) and it was subjected to 4 separate impacts,
one in each quadrant.

Fig. 2 Dynatup 8100 medium-energy drop tower with impact-table fixture installed

A special fixture called the impact-table fixture was made to hold the sample during

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

7
the impact event as shown schematically in Fig. 3. The panel was removed after
each impact and ultrasonically scanned to provide a measure of impact-damage
progression.

Fig. 3 Schematic drawing of impact-table’s fixture supports and location of impact

Once all 4 impacts were completed, a force-deflection curve was constructed and a
damage-area progression analysis conducted. Table 4 gives detailed information on
the thick-section composite panels tested in impact.

Table 4 Composite samples tested with low-velocity-impact protocol for thickness, weight,
and areal density

Areal
Thickness Weight density
Fabric Lay-up Resin 2
(cm) (g) kg/m
2
(lb/ft )
22-ply woven roving Ru-cat/p-DCPD 1.47 4415 26.7 (5.5)
2-D, 24-oz
E-glass, quasi-
E-glass SC-15 epoxy 1.52 4359 26.4 (5.4)
isotropic
2-D, 24-oz
22-ply woven roving 1.42 4170 25.2 (5.2)
E-glass, Ru-cat/p-DCPD
E-glass, quasi-
PA-
isotropic SC-15 epoxy 1.24 3943 23.9 (4.9)
VARTM
Proprietary Telene
2-D, 24-oz 22-ply woven roving
formulation 1.96 5027 30.4 (6.2)
X2-glass X2-glass, quasi-
p-DCPD
isotropic

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

8
3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Mechanical Testing

3.1.1 SBS Testing

Results of the SBS testing are presented in Table 5. Without exception, the SC-15
resin composites had a higher SBS strength. The SBS strength in p-DCPD
composites was poor regardless of fiber architecture or glass fiber. The p-DCPD
composite that performed best was the satin-weave 7781 E-glass at 30.6 MPa (only
a 35% reduction). It is not known why the 7781 E-glass composite performed well
versus the group; the other satin weave, the 6781 S2-glass, performed poorly. It
may have something to do with the individual proprietary sizings applied to both
fabrics and the 8-harness satin weave architecture under short span, 3-point
bending. Both the PPG X1-glass and Bi-axial E-glass composites had single-digit
SBS strengths with the PPG E-glass and AGY S2-glass composites having an
11.9- and 10.1-MPa SBS strength, respectively. In regard to the PPG X1-glass, the
attempt to remove the film former with an acetone bath—“washing” versus
“unwashed”—and improve p-DCPD wetting did not improve SBS strength but,
rather, decreased it. The 2 PPG X2-glass composites with the T-74 sizing
performed better than the group, but still demonstrated SBS strength values that
were less than half of the SC-15 resin composites.

Table 5 Short-beam shear strengths and failure modes of SC-15 and p-DCPD resin
composites tested

SC-15 p-DCPD
Fabric Failure Failure
(MPa) (MPa)
6781 49.7 Flexure 14.7 ...
7781 47.5 Flexure 30.6 ...
PPG E 33.0 Flexure 11.9 ...
PPG X1 NA NA 7.5 ...
AGY S2-933 43.4 Flexure 10.1 ...
PPG X1 (washed) NA NA 7.0 ...
Biax (2026 PPG) 46.3 Flexure 6.0 ...
X2(T-74)–PPG Telene NA NA 19.0 ...
X2(T-74)–ESM 611+ NA NA 17.0 ...

Visual inspection of the tested samples sometimes reveals the mode of failure.
Figure 4 illustrates the failure modes of 3 satin-weave composites for comparison.
Table 5 shows all of the SC-15 resin composites failed in flexure, namely
compression under the point of load application forming a kink band. The failure
is visible in Fig. 4 in the 7781 E-glass (left, top, and bottom) and the 6781 S2-glass
(center, top, and bottom) composites. Determination of the failure modes was

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

9
difficult for the p-DCPD resin composites. The 6781 S2-glass–p-DCPD resin
composite (right, top, and bottom) in Fig. 4 is characteristic of the other p-DCPD
composites and is pictured next to the corresponding SC-15 resin composite. The
p-DCPD composites demonstrate no discernable kink band or bending-tension
failure on the outer fiber layer, but only a slight indent due to the loading nose along
with a characteristic bent span seen with most samples tested in 3-point bend. The
failure here is most likely interlaminar shear without visible delamination planes.
The visual inspection together with the SBS strength data of Table 5 strongly
indicate the p-DCPD composites have significantly reduced interlaminar shear
strengths, most likely due to chemical incompatibility between the sizing and the
p-DCPD resin, which forms a poor fiber–matrix interface during cure.

Fig. 4 Tested SBS samples for visual inspection of failure mode:

(left) 7781 E-glass–SC-15, (center) 6781 S2-glass–SC-15, and (right) 6781 S2-glass–p-DCPD

3.1.2 Flexural Testing

Flexural testing was attempted on both SC-15 and p-DCPD resin composites. There
were 2 problems while conducting the flexural tests. First, most of the p-DCPD
resin composites were not failing prior to the 5% bending-strain limit defined by
ASTM D790 despite using a 40:1 ratio. This renders the ASTM D790-test results
invalid or, at very least, suspect. Second, given the smaller panel size manufactured
and the resulting limited number of 11-inch × 1-inch × 0.25-inch (28-cm × 2.5-cm
× 0.6-cm) samples that could be tested, there were not enough samples to provide
an acceptable sample size (minimum of 5) for both flexural and tension testing.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

10
Given the higher probability of obtaining good data from tension testing, flexural
testing was discontinued.

A complete set of flexural data for the satin-weave composite 6781 S2-glass is
presented here to provide a representation. The flexural stiffness of the 6781 S2-
glass–SC-15 composite was 23.3-GPa versus 15.6-GPa for the 6781 S2-glass–p-
DCPD composite, and the flexural strength was 495-MPa versus 193.4-MPa. The
SC-15 resin composite’s failure mode was flexure showing compression failure
under the load nose and the p-DCPD resin composite; a combination of flexure and
interlaminar shear as shown in Fig. 5. Again, the sizing incompatibility appears to
have significantly lowered both the flexural stiffness and strength of p-DCPD
versus a corresponding SC-15 resin composite.

Fig. 5 Tested 3-point-bend flexural samples for visual inspection of failure mode:
(left and edge left) 6781 S2-glass–p-DCPD and (right) 6781 S2-glass–SC-15

3.1.3 Tension Testing

Tension testing was completed on all composites listed in Table 2. DIC was used
to evaluate the strain field over a gage length of 4–5 inches (about 10–12 cm) and
calculate a stress–strain curve for each material. At least 5 replicates were
performed for each material. Young’s modulus in the linear region (subjectively
determined from the stress–strain curves) and the ultimate tensile strength (based
on the maximum load obtained) are reported in Table 6. The PPG experimental
fibers had no SC-15 resin composite for comparison (as indicated by “NA” in the
table) and results are only reported for p-DCPD resin. The lack of an SC-15
composite for these fibers is because ARL received small amounts of fabric from
PPG; since these fibers have unique sizings specifically formulated for the Telene
p-DCPD resin, it was decided to focus on infusing these fabrics solely with p-
DCPD resin. In Table 6 the fiber architectures are divided into satin weaves in the
first 2 rows and woven rovings in the remainder.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

11
 Table 6 Tension data for SC-15 and p-DCPD composites (“NC”: not completed)

Fabric SC-15 p-DCPD

Modulus Strength Modulus Strength
(GPa) (MPa) (GPa) (MPa)
6781 23.4 480.1 19.9 404.4
7781 20.9 344.7 19.5 279.0
PPG E 23.6 350.4 17.4 324.4
PPG X1 NA NA 15.0 306.5
AGY S2-933 22.6 405.4 NC NC
PPG X1 (washed) NA NA 18.7 324.6
Biaxial (2026 PPG) 27.3 437.7 22.2 393.8
X2(T-74)–PPG Telene NA NA 14.1 324.8
X2(T-74)–ESM 611+ NA NA 15.7 228.3

The satin-weave composites, 6781 S2-glass and the 7781 E-glass, were
recommended by Spencer Composites based on its experience with infusing p-
DCPD resin. Except for the 6781 S2-glass–p-DCPD composite, all satin weaves
had a low void fraction (2.0% or less) and a fiber-volume fraction of 46%–49%
(Table 2). The 6781 S2-glass composites are stiffer and stronger than the 7781 E-
glass composites due to the difference between the glass fibers. There is a
noticeable drop off in strength of about 20% between the p-DCPD matrix and SC-
15 matrix composites. The moduli values are, however, very similar, although there
is a discernable decrease in the p-DCPD composite stiffness. Even though tension
tests are fiber dominated, the fiber–matrix bond and shear strength do influence the
results. Visual inspection of the failed coupons (illustrated in Fig. 6) explains why
there is an observed drop off in tensile strength with the p-DCPD composites.
Figure 6 has 2 images each of the 6781 S2-glass–p-DCPD (left) and 6781 S2-glass–
SC-15 (right). The SC-15 resin composite has a clean break in the gage length with
no interlaminar delaminations. The p-DCPD resin composite suffers multiple axial
delaminations, which erode stiffness and result in lower strength values.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

12
Fig. 6 Failure modes of satin-weave 6781 S2-glass composites with (left) p-DCPD matrix
and (center and right) SC-15 matrix

The PPG E-glass, X1-glass and X2-glass, the biaxial stitched E-glass, and the AGY
S2-glass demonstrated similar trends in tensile properties compared to the satin-
weave composites. The PPG E-glass (washed) woven roving, the AGY S2-glass
woven roving, and the biaxial stitched E-glass had both SC-15 and p-DCPD
composites for direct comparison. The PPG E-glass composites has similar strength
values but a significant drop in stiffness (about 25%). The AGY S2-glass–SC-15
composite had very similar stiffness and strength values to the other S2-glass
composite (6781 satin weave); however, the AGY S2-glass with 933 sizing did not
wet well with the p-DCPD resin and produced a composite with a large void-
volume fraction of 7.6% (Table 2). As a result, under the tensile load, the AGY S2-
glass–p-DCPD composite slipped in the grips and sheared off the top layers,
producing no usable data. The biaxial E-glass composite tested successfully with
both resins, and a 20% drop in stiffness and 10% drop in strength were observed
for the p-DCPD resin composite. It is unclear whether the PPG 2026 sizing and/or
the unidirectional tows of the biaxial stitched-fabric architecture contributed to an
improved tensile performance of the biaxial E-glass–p-DCPD composite.

The PPG X1- and X2-fibers were infused with only p-DCPD resin, but still support
the observed trend that p-DCPD matrix composites have decreased stiffness and
strength in tension due to low interlaminar shear properties. A 25% increase in
stiffness is observed between the PPG X1-fiber–p-DCPD composites, washed

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13
versus unwashed; however, the strength values are roughly equivalent. Unlike the
SBS data (Table 5), the tensile data could be indicating an advantage to removing
the film former—known to be incompatible with the p-DCPD resin’s chemistry—
but this is unclear. The PPG X2-glass fiber with T-74 sizing was infused with 2
types of p-DCPD resin: Spencer Composites ESM-611+ and Telene p-DCPD. The
ESM-611+ p-DCPD resin composite had a 10% decrease in modulus and a 42%
increase in tensile strength over the Telene p-DCPD composite. As with the satin-
weave p-DCPD composites, the failure modes demonstrated by the woven roving
and biaxial stitched composites were gage-length delaminations indicating poor
interlaminar shear strength (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7 Group of samples tested in tension: (left) biaxial stitched E-glass–p-DCPD, (center
left) biaxial–SC-15, (center right) PPG X2-glass–Spencer p-DCPD, and (right) PPG X2-glass–
Telene p-DCPD

3.2 Impact Testing

Low-velocity-impact testing was conducted on all of the composites listed in Table
4; a total of 5 samples. The data-acquisition system generates force-versus-time
data during the 20 ms of the impact event. The force was integrated twice versus

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

14
time to calculate out-of-plane displacement or deflection. The force-deflection
curves for all 4-quadrant impacts are then plotted for each material. Damage per
impact was also tracked by performing through-thickness ultrasonic scanning after
each impact. The images were analyzed subjectively to assess damage. Visual
inspection of damaged panels (front/back, edges, and cut sections) was conducted
to understand failure modes.

3.2.1 Force-Deflection Curves

Force-defection curves for each composite are presented in Figs. 8–12. Figures 8
and 9 represents the impact-stiffness behavior for PPG E-glass fabric with SC-15
resin and p-DCPD resin, respectively.

Fig. 8 Force-deflection curve for PPG E-glass–SC-15 processed with VARTM

Fig. 9 Force-deflection curve for PPG E-glass–p-DCPD process with VARTM

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

15
Figures 10 and 11 represent the same composite subject although manufactured
with PA-VARTM, which is designed to increase the fiber-volume fraction and
mechanical performance of the composite.

Fig. 10 Force-deflection curve for PPG E-glass–SC-15 processed using PA-VARTM

Fig. 11 Force-deflection curve for PPG E-glass–p-DCPD processed using PA-VARTM

Figure 12 represents the PPG X2-glass–Telene p-DCPD composite. The first 4

composites, in Figs. 8–11, were subjected to a 1.4-kJ impact energy due to the lower
thicknesses and areal densities of the PPG E-glass composites (listed in Table 4);
the thicker PPG X2-glass composite in Fig. 12 was subjected to a 2.1-kJ impact
energy. (These impact energies were based on experience in tests whose goal was
severe damage of the composites by the fourth impact.)

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

16
 Fig. 12 Force-deflection curve for PPG X2-glass–Telene p-DCPD

The PPG E-glass–SC-15 composite of Fig. 8 has a peak load of approximately

120 kN with a maximum deflection of 3 cm by the fourth impact. The
corresponding p-DCPD matrix composite of Fig. 9 has a lower peak load of
100 kN and a maximum deflection of more than 3 cm after Impact 1. The p-DCPD
composite sustains more damage per impact and is intrinsically more compliant. At
a deflection of 1 cm, the impact stiffness of the SC-15 resin composite is about
40 kN/cm versus less than 30 kN/cm for the p-DCPD resin composite. Figure 9
shows that the force-deflection curves for Impacts 2–4 are more tightly grouped.
This is a strong indication the p-DCPD matrix composite is almost completely
damaged after the first impact.

The PA-VARTM composites of Figs. 10 and 11 demonstrate similar trends. The

PA-VARTM PPG E-glass–SC-15 composite of Fig. 10 has a slightly lower peak
load of 110 kN (compared to regular VARTM processing) and increased deflection
greater than 3 cm. This performance degradation is also observed in the
corresponding p-DCPD composite although under the action of a different
mechanism. The PA-VARTM SC-15 resin composite’s impact performance is
degraded probably due to the 3% fiber-volume increase rendering the composite
stiffer under impact and more susceptible to multiple interlaminar delaminations.
The PA-VARTM p-DCPD resin composite also exhibits degraded impact
performance but, in contrast, likely due to an increase in the void content (4%
versus 0.8%, according to Table 3). Indeed, the p-DCPD resin composite of Fig. 12
has a lower peak load of 80 kN and deflection greater than 3.5 cm. Again, after the
first impact the panel is almost completely damaged.

The PPG X2-glass–Telene p-DCPD composite sample was impacted at 2.1 kJ due
to its higher areal density. The force-deflection data are presented in Fig. 12. This

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

17
panel represents an attempt to apply a more chemically compatible sizing (T-74)
for the p-DCPD resin to improve both mechanical and impact properties. The
impact performance of the X2-glass fiber composite is comparable to impact data
obtained for S2-glass–SC-15 composites as presented in the references for the 4-
quadrant impact protocol.19,20 The peak load of 120 kN and the stiffness degradation
per impact is comparable; however, the Telene p-DCPD composite has a distinctly
unique rebound behavior. The rebound parts of the curves are not grouped as in the
other composites (Figs. 8–11). This strongly indicates the damage per impact is
more localized with crushing under the impactor in contrast to delamination or
crumpling, which may extend out to the edge beyond the vicinity of the impact.
This localized crushing is especially apparent in Impact 4 in Fig. 12. This change
in impact behavior, compared to the other impacted composites illustrated in the
force-deflection curves, represents an improved impact response that constrains
delamination and damage to the vicinity of the impact; it may indicate the T-74
sizing is improving the fiber–matrix bond and the interlaminar shear properties.

3.2.2 Damage Progression

During the evaluation of impact data it is important to look at the damage
progression per impact in addition to force-deflection curves. Figures 13–17 are
collective images taken after each impact on the 5 composites tested. Typically
damage is indicated by dark blue with a lighter blue perimeter or a transition. A
visual assessment of the figures reveals the p-DCPD resin composites (Figs. 14 and
16) performed quite poorly and showed excessive damage after each impact.
Complete damage of the impact sample was observed after the second impact and
the damage extended to the edges outside the impact aperture (inner square in the
images). The SC-15 resin composites (Figs. 13 and 15) performed better, but were
completely damaged after the third impact. Again, the composites processed using
PA-VARTM showed more damage per impact, especially the p-DCPD resin
composite (Fig. 16). The PPG X2-glass–Telene p-DCPD composite (Fig. 17)
demonstrated a damage progression similar to the SC-15 composites (Figs. 13 and
15); again, another indication the T-74 sizing assisted in improving the interlaminar
shearing strength of the p-DCPD composites.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

18
 Fig. 13 Damage progression for PPG E-glass–SC-15 composite processed with VARTM

Fig. 14 Damage progression for PPG E-glass–p-DCPD composite process with VARTM

Fig. 15 Damage progression for PPG E-glass–SC-15 composite processed using PA-VARTM

Fig. 16 Damage progression for PPG E-glass–p-DCPD composite processed using PA-VARTM

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

19
 Fig. 17 Damage progression for PPG X2-glass–Telene p-DCPD composite

3.2.3 Damage Visualization

The ultrasonic scanning indicates only the presence and extent of damage and not
the type. To properly determine the failure mode during the impact event, it is
necessary to visually inspect the damaged composite or section through the damage
to view the cross section. For impact, this damage is usually in the form of
delamination planes between reinforcing layers of glass fabric, matrix cracking,
impact puncture in the composite through multiple top layers, and/or kinking or
crumpling extended to the edge. Each composite tested in impact was visually
inspected in the vicinity of impact to note any distinct visible damage that would
reveal the failure modes. A few composites were selected for sectioning through
selected impact sites.

Front and back images of SC-15 and p-DCPD composites are presented in
Figs. 18–20. Figure 18 compares the front-face impact damage of representative
SC-15 and p-DCPD resin composites. The SC-15 shows much more surface
damage in the vicinity of the 4 impacts than the p-DCPD; however, the p-DCPD
resin composite has surface crumpled lines that extend out from the vicinity of the
impact diagonally to the panel edge.

Fig. 18 Front-face damage for composites (left) PPG E-glass–p-DCPD and (right) PPG
E-glass–SC-15

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

20
Fig. 19 Back-face damage for composites (left) PPG E-glass–SC-15 manufactured using
standard VARTM and (right) PA-VARTM

Figure 19 gives back-face images of the 2 SC-15 resin composites allowing for an
interesting contrast between standard VARTM- and PA-VARTM-manufactured
panels. The PA-VARTM manufacturing process is typically used to improve the
mechanical performance of the composite through increasing the fiber-volume
fraction by about 2%–3%. The impact performance may be degraded for these
composites due to an increase of the brittle fiber reinforcement at the expense of
the ductile matrix. The standard VARTM panel displays 4 distinct back-face
perforations with the fourth impact displaying the most damage, while the PA-
VARTM panel has virtually no back-face perforations after the second impact. This
difference was already noted and is supported by the force-deflection curves, Fig. 8
versus Fig. 10, and the progressive-damage scans of Figs. 13 and 15. The PA-
VARTM panel absorbs impact energy through the formation of interlaminar
delaminations that accumulate to render the panel more compliant under impact
while the standard VARTM panel experiences more localized delaminations that
result in more pronounced back-face perforations.
Figure 20 shows both front- and back-face images for the PPG X2-glass–Telene p-
DCPD composite. This p-DCPD composite does not display the crumpled diagonal
damage of the E-glass–p-DCPD composites but, rather, damage similar to the SC-
15 resin composite. Damage is contained to the vicinity of the impact, especially
for Impact 4, and there is no visual evidence of crumpling. Additional visual
inspection of the edges of the p-DCPD resin composites reveals no edge kinking,
which is representative of large-scale crumpling, as is observed in the 2 other PPG
E-glass–p-DCPD composites (in Fig. 21). This further supports the observation that
the T-74 sizing has improved the fiber–matrix bond and the interlaminar shear
properties have improved impact performance.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

21
Fig. 20 Front- (left) and back- (right) face damage for the PPG X2-glass–Telene p-DCPD
composite

Fig. 21 Images of edge damage in p-DCPD composites subject to 4-quadrant impacts: (top)
PPG E-glass–p-DCPD manufactured using standard VARTM, (center) same composite
manufactured using PA-VARTM, and (bottom) PPG X2-glass–Telene p-DCPD

Sectioning through selected impact locations was also performed on all impact
composites and dye applied to bring out damage on the cross sections. The lower-
areal-density composites subjected to a 1.4-kJ impact energy were sectioned
through Impacts 2 and 3; the thicker X2-glass composite subjected to 2.1 kJ was

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

22
sectioned through Impacts 3 and 4. Figure 22 shows the SC-15 resin composites
(middle image) dissipate impact energy by developing large interlaminar
delaminations that extend out significantly from the vicinity of the impacts. The p-
DCPD, in contrast, absorbs the impact energy through significant permanent
deformations under the impact (probably due to interlaminar matrix cracking) and
whole-scale crumpling of the aperture of impact. As previously noted, the
crumpling forms localized kinking fractures, which extend out to the edge of the
panel. The PPG X2-glass–Telene p-DCPD composite, with improved interlaminar-
shear properties, dissipates impact damage with localized punching damage under
the impact and delaminations in the immediate vicinity of the 4 impacts.

Fig. 22 Cross sections of 3 impacted composites: (top) PPG E-glass–p-DCPD, (center) PPG
E-glass–SC-15, and (bottom) PPG X2-glass–Telene p-DCPD

4. Conclusion

Mechanical and impact testing were conducted on various SC-15 and p-DCPD resin
composites to assess the suitability of the p-DCPD resin system as a viable
replacement to traditional epoxies. Mechanical and impact testing conclusively
identified p-DCPD composites’ compromised mechanical and impact performance
and properties compared to epoxy composites. The testing strongly indicates the
culprit is low interlaminar strength due to poor adhesion and wetting at the fiber–
matrix interface. Commercially available glass fabrics with epoxy-compatible
sizings are not compatible with the p-DCPD’s unique chemistry; moreover, p-
DCPD composites processed with these sizings tend to have higher void-content
fractions, unreacted resin at the fiber–matrix interface (as evidenced by a lingering
odor after post-cure), and significantly compromised interfacial shear properties. Even
though this was anticipated and an effort made to develop a more compatible sizing,
the vinyl silane-based T-74 sizing on the X2-fibers was still not able to compete in
mechanical and impact tests with the SC-15 epoxy-resin composites.

Most of the proprietary PPG sizings listed in Table 1 were optimized for ballistics
impact using V50 testing21 as the key metric. The requirements to improve ballistics
performance are often contrary to improving structural response. A sizing must be

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

23
developed to allow the p-DCPD resin system to react fully at the fiber–matrix
interface and form a strong bond. Optimizing this interface should maximize the
shear-strength properties and improve interlaminar properties and structural
performance. A program to develop chemically compatible sizings for the p-DCPD
resin system with air-stable Ru catalyst is currently underway at ARL.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

24
5. References

1. Knorr DB, Masser KA, Elder RM, Sirk TW, Hindenlang MD, Yu JH,
Richardson AD, Boyd SE, Spurgeon WA, Lenhardt JL. Overcoming the
structural versus energy dissipation trade-off in highly crosslinked polymer
networks: Ultrahigh strain rate response in polydicyclopentadiene. Comp Sci
Tech. 2015;114:17–25.

2. Bielawski CW, Grubbs RH. Living ring-opening metathesis polymerization.

Prog Polym Sci. 2007;32(1):1–29.

3. Meng J. Advanced composite armor for force protection. Aberdeen Proving

Ground (MD): Army Research Laboratory (US); 2016 Jun. Report No.: ARL-
CR-0802.

4. Spurgeon WA, Boyd SE. Ballistics and impact evaluation of new glass fibers
and sizings in poly-dicyclopentadiene matrix composites. Aberdeen Proving
Ground (MD): Army Research Laboratory (US); 2012 Dec. Report No.: ARL-
TR-6269.

5. Spencer Composites Corporation. Sacramento (CA); [accessed 2016 Aug 2].

http://www.spencercomposites.com.

6. Applied Poleramic Inc. Benicia (CA); [accessed 2016 Aug 2].

http://www.appliedpoleramic.com.

7. Telene SAS: Zeon Chemicals in North America, Louisville (KY); [accessed

2016 Aug 2]. http://www.zeonchemicals.com.

8. Advanced Glassfiber Yarns. Aiken (SC); [accessed 2016 Aug 2].

http://www.agy.com.

9. Hexcel Corporation. Stamford (CT); [accessed 2016 Aug 2).

http://www.hexcel.com.

10. JPS Glass. Greenville (SC); [accessed 2016 Aug 4]. http://www.jpscm.com.

11. Holmes LJ, Wolbert JP, Gardner JA. A method for out-of-autoclave
fabrication of high fiber volume fraction fiber reinforced composites.
Aberdeen Proving Ground (MD): Army Research Laboratory (US); 2012 Jul.
ARL-TR-6057.

12. ASTM D792–13. Standard test methods for density and specific gravity
(relative density) of plastics by displacement. West Conshohocken (PA):
ASTM International; 2013.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

25
13. ASTM D2734–09. Standard test methods for void content of reinforced
plastics. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM International; 2009.

14. ASTM D3039/D3039M–14. Standard test method for tensile properties of

polymer matrix composite materials. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM
International; 2014.

15. ASTM D790–15e2. Standard test methods for flexural properties of

unreinforced and reinforced plastics and electrical insulating materials. West
Conshohocken (PA): ASTM International; 2015.

16. ASTM D2344/D2344M–13. Standard Test Method for Short-Beam Strength

of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials and Their Laminates. West
Conshohocken (PA): ASTM International; 2013.

17. Emerson RP, Bogetti TA, Gama BA, Pasupuleti PK. A multi-hit impact
method for assessing the durability of thick-section composites. SAMPE Fall
Technical Conference; 2010 Oct 11–14; Salt Lake City, UT.
18. Emerson RP, Boyd SE, Bogetti TA. Development of a multi-hit impact method
to assess damage tolerance and durability of thick-section composites. SAMPE
Spring Technical Conference; 2011 May; Long Beach, CA.

19. Boyd SE, Emerson RP, Bogetti TA. Multi-impact test method to assess
damage tolerance in thick-section composites. SAMPE Spring Technical
Conference; 2012 May; Baltimore, MD.
20. Boyd SE, Emerson RP, Bogetti TA. Low-velocity, multi-impact durability
performance of thick-section 3WEAVE S2-glass/SC-15 composites
toughened with thermoplastic polyurethane inter-layer films. Aberdeen
Proving Ground (MD): Army Research Laboratory (US); 2013 Aug. Report
No.: ARL-TR-6547.

21. MIL-STD-662F. V50 ballistic test for armor. Washington (DC): Department of
Defense (US); 1997 Dec 18.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

26
List of Symbols, Abbreviations, and Acronyms

2-D 2-dimensional

AGY Advanced Glassfiber Yarns

ARL US Army Research Laboratory

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

cP centipoise

DIC digital-image correlation

NA not applicable

NC not completed

PA-VARTM press-assisted vacuum assisted resin transfer molding

p-DCPD polydicyclopentadiene

PPG Pittsburgh Plate Glass

ROMP ring-opening metathesis polymerization

Ru ruthenium

SBS short beam shear

Tg glass transition temperature

VARTM vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding

Vf volume, fibers

Vm volume, matrix
Vv volume, voids

27
 1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL
(PDF) INFORMATION CTR
DTIC OCA

2 DIRECTOR
(PDF) US ARMY RESEARCH LAB
RDRL CIO L
IMAL HRA MAIL & RECORDS
MGMT

1 GOVT PRINTG OFC

(PDF) A MALHOTRA

1 DIR USARL
(PDF) RDRL WMM B
S BOYD

28