ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Impact Engineering 32 (2006) 1299–1312

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijimpeng

A numerical investigation of the influence of friction on

energy absorption by a high-strength fabric subjected to
ballistic impact
Y. Duana,, M. Keefeb, T.A. Bogettic, B.A. Cheesemanc, B. Powersc
a
Center for Composite Materials, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
c
US Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005, USA
Received 12 January 2004; received in revised form 8 November 2004; accepted 9 November 2004
Available online 7 January 2005

Abstract

A finite element analysis was conducted to study the influence of friction during ballistic impact of a rigid
sphere onto a square fabric panel that was firmly clamped along its four edges. Projectile-fabric friction and
yarn–yarn friction were investigated. Modeling indicates that friction dramatically affects the local fabric
structure at the impact region by hindering the lateral mobility of principal yarns. Reduction of lateral yarn
mobility allows the projectile to load and break more yarns so that fabric possessing a high level of friction
absorbs more energy than fabric with no friction. The projectile-fabric friction delays yarn breakage by
distributing the maximum stress along the periphery of the projectile-fabric contact zone. The delay of yarn
breakage substantially increases the fabric energy absorption during the later stages of the impact. The
yarn–yarn friction hinders the relative motion between yarns and thus resists de-crimping of fabric weave
tightness. It induces the fabric to fail earlier during the impact process. The overall influence of projectile-
fabric friction and yarn–yarn friction cannot be calculated by simply adding their individual effects.
r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ballistic impact; Fabric; Friction; Failure; Finite element analysis

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 302 831 0376; fax: +1 302 831 8525.
E-mail address: duan@ccm.udel.edu (Y. Duan).

0734-743X/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2004.11.005
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1300 Y. Duan et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 32 (2006) 1299–1312

1. Introduction

High-strength fabrics are often used in ballistic impact protection systems where flexibility and
lightweight are of importance. Experiments demonstrate that interfacial friction affects the
ballistic impact energy absorption of these fabrics [1–3]. Tan et al. [1] studied the ballistic
performance of single layers of Twaron fabric. In their experiments, projectiles with different
shapes were used to impact onto rectangular fabric specimens clamped along two opposite edges.
Post-impact inspection revealed small patches of fiber breakage at the yarn crossovers near the
impact region, substantial slippage between warp and fill yarns, and perforations that were
smaller than the projectiles. These phenomena indicate that the energy expended in overcoming
yarn–yarn friction and projectile-fabric friction is a mechanism of energy absorption during
impact. Briscoe and Motamedi [2] explored the frictional characteristics of three different styles of
Kevlar fabric with respect to their ballistic impact performance. Different levels of inter fiber/yarn
friction within the Kevlar fabrics were achieved by removal or addition of surface lubricants.
Clean steel ball bearings were fired from a gas gun into the single-layer Kevlar fabric specimens
that were clamped between two flat steel rings. The projectile residual velocity as a function of
impact velocity and fabric surface treatment was obtained from the experiments. It was found that
for a given style of fabric, the velocity required to perforate increased while the residual velocity
decreased with increasing levels of friction. Fabric with a higher level of friction absorbs larger
amounts of energy. Bazhenov [3] investigated the effect of water on the ballistic performance of a
rectangular laminate comprised of 20 layers of Armos fabric. The specimens were attached to a
plasticine foundation and struck with bullets possessing spherical tips. The dry laminate stopped
the bullet while the wet laminate was perforated. It was observed that the impacted yarns in the
wet laminate were not broken—indicating the yarns moved laterally and allowed the bullet to
slide through the fabric. Based on this observation, Bazhenov surmised that the water served as a
lubricant that decreased friction between the bullet and the yarns.
Those aforementioned experiments clearly show that interfacial friction plays a role in the
ballistic impact of fabrics. However, the mechanisms through which friction takes effect are not
well understood. In a previous paper by the authors [4], a finite element analysis (FEA) model was
created to simulate the ballistic impact of a rigid sphere onto a square panel of plain-woven fabric.
Projectile-fabric friction and yarn–yarn friction were taken into account. The effect of friction on
the fabric energy absorption and the mechanisms through which friction plays a role were
deduced from that modeling effort. However, that work ignored fabric failure. In this study, a
failure criterion for yarn material has been added, allowing for more comprehensive simulations
and a better understanding of the effect of interfacial friction.

2. Energy transfer during ballistic impact of a fabric

When a projectile impacts a fabric, a force is exerted on the projectile by the fabric, which
reduces its velocity. At the same time, the fabric is deformed. Strain waves originating from the
impact region propagate along yarns toward the fabric edges, where they are reflected. If there is
no external force acting on the impact system, energy in the system should be conserved. The
energy dissipation due to projectile deformation is assumed to be negligible, as are fiber
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Y. Duan et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 32 (2006) 1299–1312 1301

intermolecular friction, wind resistance and acoustic losses. Therefore, the amount of lost
projectile kinetic energy DEpk will be completely absorbed by the fabric through three
mechanisms: yarn strain energy Eys, yarn kinetic energy Eyk, and the energy lost in frictional
sliding Ef. The governing equation for energy transfer between the projectile and the fabric is
DE pk ¼ E ys þ E yk þ E f : (1)
The loss of projectile kinetic energy DEpk is affected by several factors including the material
properties of the constituent fibers, fabric structure, boundary conditions, projectile geometry,
impact velocity, friction between the projectile and the fabric, and friction between the yarns/
fibers within the fabric itself. These factors take effect through their influence on the three energy
absorption mechanisms in Eq. (1) and have been recently reviewed in Ref. [5].
In ballistic impact experiments it is customary to measure the projectile initial velocity ni and
residual velocity vr [2,6–9]. The decrease in projectile kinetic energy, DEpk, may be determined
using
1
DE pk ¼ mðv2i
v2r Þ; (2)
2
where m is the mass of the projectile. Recently, Starratt et al. [10] reported that they have
developed a method for continuous measurement of projectile velocities n(t) in ballistic impact
experiments. The loss of projectile kinetic energy as a function of time t is described by
1
DE pk ðtÞ ¼ m½v2i
vðtÞ2 : (3)
2
This experimental technique greatly improves the understanding of the ballistic impact
behavior of fabrics. However, the essential physics of the impact problem, which would explain
how friction affects the fabric energy absorption, is difficult to determine through experimentation
alone. This is because the quantitative values of yarn strain energy Eys, yarn kinetic energy Eyk,
and the energy lost in frictional sliding Ef are difficult, perhaps impossible, to obtain through
experiments. Numerical simulations are required to resolve such issues.

3. Modeling ballistic impact onto a high-strength fabric

A commercially available explicit nonlinear FEA code, LS-DYNA, is used to model the
ballistic impact of a rigid sphere onto a single layer of a high-strength fabric. Fig. 1 shows the
initial geometry of the impact event: a 2.091 g, 8 mm diameter rigid sphere impacting at normal
incidence onto the center of a square plain-woven fabric panel. The projectile is constrained to
move in the direction normal to the x–z plane and its initial velocity is 800 m/s. The four edges of
the fabric are perpendicular to the warp/weft yarns and are firmly clamped.
Since the impact system has symmetry with respect to the x–y plane and the y–z plane, only a
quarter of the entire system needs to be modeled. As in the previous paper by the authors [4], the
fabric was modeled at a yarn level of resolution. The warp and fill yarns were modeled as a locally
orthotropic elastic continuum and were combined to form the fabric weave structure. Fig. 2 shows
a part of the FEA mesh for the plain-woven fabric. The fabric thickness is 0.23 mm, the yarn
crimp wavelength is 1.64 mm, and the volumetric density of the yarn material is 600 kg/m3. Simple
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1302 Y. Duan et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 32 (2006) 1299–1312

Fig. 1. The initial geometry of the ballistic impact of a rigid sphere onto the center of a square fabric panel.

Fig. 2. Finite element mesh for the plain-woven fabric.

Coulomb friction was introduced between yarns at crossovers and between the projectile and the
fabric.
The purpose of the current work is to investigate the effect of friction during ballistic impact
onto a high-strength fabric, but not to predict the fabric ballistic limit. The orthotropic elastic
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Y. Duan et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 32 (2006) 1299–1312 1303

Table 1
The orthotropic elastic material data (GPa) for yarn [11]

E11 E22 E33 G12 G13 G23 n12 n13 n23

164 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 0 0 0

material data from reference [11] was used for the yarn material properties, which are listed in
Table 1. A von Mises stress of 130 GPa was used as failure criterion of the yarn material. While it
did not physically represent the yarn failure, this value, along with the high impact velocity, was
chosen because it permitted a reasonable computation time for the purpose of the study. Once the
von Mises stress of a material point reached the failure criterion value, the element failed and was
deleted from the analysis. Since the elastic modulus along the fiber direction (E11) is much larger
than the transverse and shear moduli, the von Mises stress at a material point is approximately
equal to the stress in the fiber direction. The stress in the fiber direction is a linear function of the
strain in that direction. Therefore, the maximum von Mises stress failure criterion is roughly
equivalent to a maximum strain failure criterion, which has been used by other researchers for the
investigation of yarns [9,12,13].

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Fabric deformation during the ballistic impact

The first simulation used a friction coefficient m ¼ 0:5 for both the yarn–yarn friction and the
projectile-fabric friction. Fig. 3 shows the deformed configurations of the fabric at different points
in time. At 2 ms, the transverse deflection coincided with the contact zone of the fabric and the
spherical projectile; thus the transverse deflection wave front was circular in shape. As the
projectile continued moving, the transverse deflection of the principal yarns (those yarns in direct
contact with the projectile) propagated away from the impact region. The interaction between
yarns at crossovers caused the secondary yarns (those yarns not in direct contact with the
projectile) to deflect out of the plane of the fabric. At 4 and 6 ms, the transverse deflection wave
front formed a square with the four corners locating at the two orthogonal yarns that passed
through the impact center. This type of transverse deflection has been observed during
experiments involving the ballistic impact of fabrics [6,14]. The transverse deflection wave
continued to propagate outward until it reached the clamped edges, where it was reflected back
towards the impact point. The projectile eventually perforated the fabric and continued moving at
a constant velocity. The fabric recoiled and at 14 ms the transverse deflection became conical in
shape, as indicated by its almost circular base.
In order to examine the effect of friction, a second, comparative, simulation was conducted with
all conditions the same as in the previous simulation except that the friction coefficient was set to
m ¼ 0: Fig. 4 shows the fabric deformation at different points in time. As can be seen, the absence
of friction did not significantly affect the fabric global transverse deflection wave. However, it
dramatically altered the local fabric structure at the impact region; except for the two orthogonal
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1304 Y. Duan et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 32 (2006) 1299–1312

Fig. 3. Side and top view of the deformed configurations of the fabric at different points in time for the case where
m ¼ 0:5:

yarns that were restricted by the symmetry, yarns at the impact region were deflected from the
impact center.
A comparison of the fabric failure patterns for the two cases is shown in Fig. 5. For the case
where m ¼ 0; the fabric weave structure was substantially distorted in both the impact region and
the region where principal yarns were located. Whereas the distortion of the fabric weave
structure was mainly located in the impact region for the case where m ¼ 0:5: The reason for the
difference may be that friction at yarn crossovers resists relative motion between yarns. Since
there was no such resistance for the case where m ¼ 0; the yarns were able to easily slip past each
other during the impact. In addition, friction affected the number of yarns that were broken
during the ballistic impact. Three warp yarns and three weft yarns were broken for the case where
m ¼ 0; while five warp yarns and five weft yarns were broken for the case where m ¼ 0:5:

4.2. The influence of friction on fabric energy absorption

Fig. 6 shows the projectile velocity as a function of time for the two simulations. The projectile
velocity decreases more quickly during the whole impact process for the case where m ¼ 0:5: The
projectile residual velocity is 749 m/s for the case where m ¼ 0:5; while it is 769 m/s for the case
where m ¼ 0: The results are qualitatively consistent with the experimental findings of Briscoe and
Motamedi [2], who showed that the projectile residual velocity decreased with an increased level
of friction. Using Eq. (2), one may get that the fabric energy absorption capacity for the case
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Y. Duan et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 32 (2006) 1299–1312 1305

Fig. 4. Side and top view of the deformed configurations of the fabric at different points in time for the case where
m ¼ 0:

Fig. 5. Comparison of the fabric failure patterns under different friction conditions.

where m ¼ 0 is only 62% of what it is for the case where m ¼ 0:5: The ratio is close to the
corresponding ratio of the numbers of yarns that were broken during the ballistic impact.
The energy imparted by the projectile to the fabric during the ballistic impact was obtained
from the simulations. Fig. 7 shows the energy transfer for m ¼ 0:5: All the energies in this figure
are normalized with respect to the maximum value of projectile kinetic energy decrease. The
kinetic energy lost by the projectile was totally absorbed by the fabric’s yarn strain energy, yarn
kinetic energy, and energy dissipated in frictional sliding. As can be seen, the contributions of yarn
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1306 Y. Duan et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 32 (2006) 1299–1312

800

790

Projectile velocity (m/s)

780

770 µ=0
µ=0.5
760

750

740
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (µs)

Fig. 6. Time development of the projectile velocity under different friction conditions.

150 Loss of projectile kinetic energy

Yarn strain energy
125 Yarn kinetic energy
Normalized energy (%)

Energy dissipated in frictional sliding

Sum of yarn strain energy and yarn kinetic energy
100

75

50

25

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (µs)

Fig. 7. Energy transfer between projectile and fabric during the ballistic impact for the case where m ¼ 0:5:

strain energy and yarn kinetic energy to the fabric energy absorption are almost the same at 7 ms.
However, yarn strain energy gradually becomes the primary energy absorption mechanism. It
reaches a maximum value at 11.3 ms when several yarns were broken, and accounts for 72% of the
total absorbed energy. At that instant of time, yarn kinetic energy and the energy dissipated in
frictional sliding accounts for 10% and 7% of the total absorbed energy, respectively. The fabric
absorbed 89% (72%+10%+7%) of the total absorbed energy before yarns were broken. The
remaining 11% was absorbed during the perforation process that spanned the time interval
between 11.3 and 14 ms, when the projectile exited the fabric with a residual velocity of 749 m/s.
With the breakage of yarns, yarn strain energy abruptly decreases. The yarn strain energy is
transformed into yarn kinetic energy and frictional sliding energy. The energy dissipated in
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Y. Duan et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 32 (2006) 1299–1312 1307

Loss of projectile kinetic energy

100 Yarn strain energy
Yarn kinetic energy

Normalized energy (%)

75

50

25

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (µs)

Fig. 8. Energy transfer between projectile and fabric during the ballistic impact for the case where m ¼ 0:

frictional sliding increases significantly and becomes an important energy absorption mechanism;
at 14 ms after impact, it accounts for 35% of the fabric total absorbed energy.
For the case where m ¼ 0; energy transfer during the ballistic impact is depicted in Fig. 8. All the
energies in the figure are normalized with respect to the maximum value of projectile kinetic
energy decrease. Since there is no friction for this case, the kinetic energy lost by the projectile is
totally absorbed by the fabric as yarn strain energy and yarn kinetic energy. Before 5 ms, yarn
strain energy is less than or equivalent to yarn kinetic energy. However, yarn strain energy
gradually becomes the primary energy absorption mechanism. It reaches a maximum value at
11.7 ms when several yarns were broken, and accounts for 82% of the total absorbed energy. At
that point in time, the yarn kinetic energy accounts for 16% of the total absorbed energy. The
fabric absorbed 98% (82%+16%) of the total absorbed energy before yarns were broken. The
remaining 2% was absorbed during the perforation process that occurred during the time interval
from 11.7 to 12.5 ms, when the projectile exited the fabric at 769 m/s. With the yarn breakage, yarn
strain energy suddenly decreased and the yarn kinetic energy increased. At 12.5 ms, yarn strain
energy accounts for 74% and yarn kinetic energy accounts for 26% of the total absorbed energy.
A comparison of the energy absorption mechanisms for the two cases is shown in Fig. 9. All the
energies are normalized with respect to the maximum value of the projectile kinetic energy
decrement for the case where m ¼ 0:5: It can be seen from this figure that the energy dissipated in
frictional sliding accounts for only a very small portion of the total absorbed energy before the
onset of yarn breakage; however, both yarn strain energy and yarn kinetic energy are increased by
the presence of friction. Therefore, friction contributes to the fabric energy absorption not only
through the energy dissipated by frictional sliding but also by increasing the yarn strain energy
and yarn kinetic energy.
Fig. 10 depicts the fabric von Mises stress distributions at 9 ms for the two cases. It can be seen
from this figure that the stress is primarily distributed on the principal yarns. Three warp yarns
and three weft yarns were severely stressed for the case where m ¼ 0; while five warp yarns and five
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1308 Y. Duan et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 32 (2006) 1299–1312

100 Yarn strain energy; µ=0.5

Yarn strain energy; µ=0
Yarn kinetic energy; µ=0.5

Normalized energy (%)

Yarn kinetic energy; µ=0
Energy dissipated in frictional sliding; µ=0.5
75

50

25

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (µs)

Fig. 9. Comparison of the energy absorption mechanisms for the two cases with different friction conditions.

Fig. 10. The fabric von Mises stress distributions at 9 ms for the two cases with different friction conditions.

weft yarns were stressed to the same level for the case where m ¼ 0:5: The difference is mainly due
to the different fabric structures at the impact region. The friction hindered the lateral motion
of the principal yarns and forced the projectile to severely load more yarns. The different yarn
strain energies for the two cases, as shown in Fig. 9, may be explained by the different von
Mises stress distributions. Since more yarns were severely stressed, more strain energy was stored
for the case where m ¼ 0:5: The different yarn kinetic energies for the two cases may be explained
in a similar way: more yarns were forced to move at a higher velocity, so the fabric had
more kinetic energy for the case where m ¼ 0:5: This result is consistent with the work of Lee et al.
[15], who showed that the amount of energy that a fabric can absorb increases when the principal
yarns are hindered so that they do not move laterally out of the path of the projectile during
ballistic impact.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Y. Duan et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 32 (2006) 1299–1312 1309

4.3. The influence of projectile-fabric friction and yarn–yarn friction

Two types of friction were taken into account in this study: projectile-fabric friction and
yarn–yarn friction. The simulations reveal an overall influence of the two types of friction. They
were unable to differentiate between the individual contributions of each type of friction. To
determine the effect of projectile-fabric friction, a simulation was conducted where all the
conditions were the same as in the previous ones except that the friction coefficients for projectile-
fabric friction mp and yarn–yarn friction my were set equal to 0.5 and 0, respectively. Similarly, the
effect of yarn–yarn friction was investigated by setting mp ¼ 0 and my ¼ 0:5:
Fig. 11 shows the time development of fabric energy absorption for the four different frictional
conditions. All the energies in this figure are normalized with respect to the energy absorption
capacity for the case where m ¼ 0: As can be seen, both yarn–yarn friction and projectile-fabric
friction increase the fabric energy absorption capacity. The fabric energy absorption capacity is
increased by 70% if there is only projectile-fabric friction (mp ¼ 0:5; my ¼ 0), while it is increased
by 25% if there is only yarn–yarn friction (mp ¼ 0; my ¼ 0:5). If there are both projectile-fabric
friction and yarn–yarn friction, the fabric energy absorption capacity is increased by 62%.
Apparently, the combined influence of projectile-fabric friction and yarn–yarn friction cannot be
calculated by a simple addition of their individual contributions.
Compared to the case where m ¼ 0; the amount of energy absorbed by the fabric is increased
over the duration of the impact if the yarn–yarn friction, projectile-fabric friction, or both of them
possess non-zero values. This is because the yarn–yarn friction resists the relative movement of
yarns whereas the projectile-fabric friction restrains the movement of principal yarns off the
projectile. Both types of friction contribute to maintaining the integrity of the local fabric
structure at the impact region and result in more yarns being severely loaded and moving at higher
velocities.
Comparing the case where there was only yarn–yarn friction (mp ¼ 0; my ¼ 0:5) with the case
where there were both yarn–yarn friction and projectile-fabric friction (m ¼ 0:5), one finds that the

200

µ=0
µp=0, µ y =0.5
Normalized energy (%)

150
µp=0.5, µ y =0
µ=0.5

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (µs)

Fig. 11. Time development of fabric energy absorption for the four different friction conditions.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1310 Y. Duan et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 32 (2006) 1299–1312

100

Normalized impact load (%)

µ=0.5
µp=0, µ y =0.5
75

50

25

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (µs)

Fig. 12. Time development of impact load for the two different friction conditions.

Fig. 13. The fabric von Mises stress distributions at 5 ms for the two different friction conditions.

projectile-fabric friction significantly increased the fabric energy absorption during the later stages
of the impact process. Fig. 12 shows the time development of impact loads for the two cases. It is
clear that the projectile-fabric friction substantially increased the peak impact load and also
delayed its occurrence. Examination of the deformed fabric configurations revealed that one yarn
had been broken at 10 ms for the case where mp ¼ 0 and my ¼ 0:5; while no yarns were broken even
at 11 ms for the case where m ¼ 0:5: The projectile-fabric friction delayed yarn breakage and thus
substantially increased the peak impact load and also delayed its occurrence. The increased
impact load is responsible for the increased energy absorption in the later stages of the impact.
Fig. 13 depicts the fabric von Mises stress distributions at the impact region for the two cases. It
can be seen that the maximum stress is distributed within the impact region when mp ¼ 0 and
my ¼ 0:5 but that it is distributed along the periphery of the projectile-fabric contact zone when
m ¼ 0:5: The projectile-fabric friction delayed yarn breakage by distributing the maximum
stress along the periphery of the projectile-fabric contact zone. Duan et al. [16] reported a similar
contribution from projectile-target friction in their research on low velocity impacts onto polymer
disks.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Y. Duan et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 32 (2006) 1299–1312 1311

Fig. 14. The deformed fabric configurations within the impact region at different points in time for the case where
mp ¼ 0:5 and my ¼ 0:

It may be noted from Fig. 11 that the fabric has the highest energy absorption capacity when
there is only projectile-fabric friction (mp ¼ 0:5; my ¼ 0). Fig. 14 shows the fabric deformation
within the impact region for that case. Eight principal yarns had been broken before 12 ms,
whereas the two remaining principal yarns were not broken even after 14 ms. The reason may be
that, since there was no friction between yarns at crossovers, there was less resistance for the
broken yarns to recoil and de-crimp the fabric tightness. The de-crimping increased the mobility
of the two unbroken yarns and thus delayed their breakage. The two unbroken yarns are
responsible for most of the energy absorbed by the fabric after 12 ms.

5. Conclusions

A commercially available explicit nonlinear FEA code, LS-DYNA, was used to model the
ballistic impact of a rigid sphere onto a square plain-woven fabric panel that was firmly clamped
along its four edges. Simple Coulomb friction was introduced between yarns at crossovers and
between the projectile and the fabric. Results from the modeling efforts show that friction affected
the fabric deformation within the impact region; the local fabric structure was substantially
modified during the impact if there was no friction. Friction hindered the lateral mobility of
principal yarns and caused the projectile to severely load and break more yarns so that fabric with
a high level of friction absorbed more energy than fabric with no friction.
Energy dissipated in frictional sliding became an important energy absorption mechanism only
after yarn breakage. Before yarns were broken, it only accounted for a very small portion of the
total absorbed energy. However, both yarn strain energy and yarn kinetic energy were larger
because of friction; friction contributed to the fabric energy absorption not only through the
energy dissipated in frictional sliding but also by increasing yarn strain energy and yarn kinetic
energy.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1312 Y. Duan et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 32 (2006) 1299–1312

The friction between the projectile and the fabric delayed yarn failure by distributing the
maximum stress along the periphery of the projectile-fabric contact zone and thus significantly
increased the fabric energy absorption in the later stages of the impact. The friction at the yarn
crossovers created a resistance to the relative motion between yarns and hindered the de-crimping
of the fabric weave tightness. It induced the fabric to fail at an earlier time. The overall influence
of projectile-fabric friction and yarn–yarn friction cannot be calculated by simply adding their
individual effects.

Acknowledgements

The support of the US Army Research Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Ground and the
Center for Composite Materials at the University of Delaware during this research is gratefully
acknowledged.

References

[1] Tan VBC, Lim CT, Cheong CH. Perforation of high-strength fabric by projectiles of different geometry. Int
J Impact Eng 2003;28(2):207–22.
[2] Briscoe BJ, Motamedi F. The ballistic impact characteristics of aramid fabrics: the influence of interface friction.
Wear 1992;158(1–2):229–47.
[3] Bazhenov S. Dissipation of energy by bulletproof aramid fabric. J Mater Sci 1997;32(15):4167–73.
[4] Duan Y, Keefe M, Bogetti TA, Cheeseman BA. Modeling friction effects on the ballistic impact behavior of a
single-ply high-strength fabric. Int J Impact Eng 2004; in press, doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2004.06.008.
[5] Cheeseman BA, Bogetti TA. Ballistic impact into fabric and compliant composite laminates. Compos Struct
2003;61(1–2):161–73.
[6] Cunniff PM. An analysis of the system effects in woven fabrics under ballistic impact. Text Res
J 1992;62(9):495–509.
[7] Shim VPW, Tan VBC, Tay TE. Modeling deformation and damage characteristics of woven fabric under small
projectile impact. Int J Impact Eng 1995;16(4):585–605.
[8] Lim CT, Tan VBC, Cheong CH. Perforation of high-strength double-ply fabric system by varying shaped
projectiles. Int J Impact Eng 2002;27(6):577–91.
[9] Gu BH. Analytical modeling for the ballistic perforation of planar plain-woven fabric target by projectile. Compos
Part B-Eng 2003;34(4):361–71.
[10] Starratt D, Sanders T, Cepus E, Poursartip A, Vaziri R. An efficient method for continuous measurement of
projectile motion in ballistic impact experiments. Int J Impact Eng 2000;24(2):155–70.
[11] Shockey DA, Erlich DC, Simons JW. Improved barriers to turbine engine fragment. US Department of
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, DOT/FAA/AR-99/8 III, 2001.
[12] Billon HH, Robinson DJ. Models for the ballistic impact of fabric armour. Int J Impact Eng 2001;25(4):411–22.
[13] Parga-landa B, Hernandez-olivares F. An analytical model to predict impact behaviour of soft armours. Int
J Impact Eng 1995;16(3):455–66.
[14] Wilde AF, Roylance DK, Rogers JM. Photographic investigation of high-speed missile impact upon nylon fabric.
Part I: energy absorption and cone radial velocity in fabric. Text Res J 1973;43(12):753–61.
[15] Lee BL, Walsh TF, Won ST, Patts HM, Song JW, Mayer AH. Penetration failure mechanisms of armor-grade
fiber composites under impact. J Comp Mater 2001;35(18):1605–33.
[16] Duan Y, Saigal A, Greif R, Zimmerman MA. Impact behavior and modeling of engineering polymers. Polym Eng
Sci 2003;43(1):112–24.