Fabrication and Mechanical Response

of Commingled GF/PET Composites

NIKLAS SVENSSON* and ROSHAN SHISHOO

Swedish Institute for Fiber and Polymer Research

P.O. B m 104, SE43122 Mlilndal, Sweden
and
MICHAEL GILCHRIST

Lkpcutment of Mechanical Engineering

University College Dublin
Belfild, Dublin 4 , Ireland
The mechanical properties and the response to mechanical load of continuous
glass fiber reinforced polyethylene terephthalate (GF/PET) laminates have been
characterized. The laminates were manufactured by compression molding stacks of
novel woven and warp knitted fabrics produced from commingled yarns. The laminate quality was examined by means of optical and scanning electron microscopy.
Few voids were found and the laminate quality was good. Resin pockets occurred in
the woven laminates, originating from the architecture of the woven fabric. The
strength of the fiber/matrix interface was poor. Some problems were encountered
while manufacturing the laminates. These led to fiber misalignment and consequently resulted in tensile mechanical properties that were slightly lower than expected. Flexural failures all initiated as a result of compression, and it is possible
that the compression strength of the matrix material, rather than its tensile strength,
might limit the ultimate mechanid performance of the composites. Flexural failures
for both materials were very gradual. The warp knitted laminates were stronger and
stiffer than the woven laminates. The impact behavior was also investigated; the
woven laminates exhibited superior damage tolerance compared with the warp
knitted laminates.
INTRODUCTION

lass fiber reinforced polyethylene terephthalate

(GF/PET) has excellent potential for future structurd applications of composite materials. Compression molding and diaphragm forming are currently the
most widely used methods for manufacturing composite components, and the research that has been
carried out in these areas, m a d y experimental, has
studied impregnation, consolidation, and processing
parameters and their influence on the mechanical
properties of the composite. Some reasons for the low
market acceptance of thermoplastic composites are
the high price of prepreg, their high processing temperatures, and high melt viscosities, which impose
severe requirements on tooling and manufacturing
equipment, and also the fact that very little is known
about their long term behavior.
*Correspondingauthor.

360

Hybrid yams containing both reinforcing fibers and

the-thermoplastic matrkin the form of fibers, splitflm, or powder are a fairly recent development that
make it quicker and easier to manufacture thermoplastic composites. Commingling offers the most intimate blend of reinforcement and matrix fibers, which
can subsequently be converted into fabrics or preforms. In commingled yams the reinforcement and
the matrix are mixed intimately at the filament level.
Fabrics are mostly produced from the yarns, and the
fabrics are then molded into composite components or
laminates. Full impregnation and wet-out require a
significant decrease in viscosity, which, in practice,
means heating the matrix polymer above its melting
temperature. Overheating will degrade the material
and consequently will reduce the composite mechanical properties.
A commingled fabric is generally non-extendable and
cannot flow to fill a mold (1). Preforms with a near netshape facilitate manufacturing, and well-designed toolPOLYMER COMPOSITES, AUGUST 7 9 9 8 , Vol. 79, No. 4

Fabrication and Mechanical Response of Commingled GF/PET Composites

ing is important. Low consolidation pressures are desirable as they reduce the stringency of the requirements on the tooling material and avoid excessive
wear of machines and tools. Pressure should also be
applied during cooling in order to prevent deconsolidation, which results in reduced mechanical properties of the composites (2).The hybrid yams are also
used in processes such as filament winding and pultrusion. Here again,well-controlled pressure and temperature at the mandrel/die are important. In theory,
it is faster to pultrude thermoplastic composites than
thermoset composites. An additional advantage is that
the pultruded thermoplastic profiles may also be post
formed and welded (3).By using hybrid yams in pultrusion, an unlimited variety of material combinations
may be produced, and combinations with fabrics are
possible (4).
A complex relationship exists between the processing conditions, the morphology in the composites, the
crystallinity, and the mechanical properties in semicrystalline composites: this relationship has previously
been studied for GF/PET by Ye and Friedrich (5).The
degree of crystallinity is often not the sole reason for
variations in mechanical properties. Rather, these are
due to the large differences in morphology that result
from Merent thermal histories during manufacturing
of composites. In commingled polypropylene (PP) composites a low cooling rate gives a morphology with
lage voids and coarse spherulites. During fracture of
these composites the cracks tend to propagate along
the spherulite boundaries, resulting in a lower fi-acture toughness than for the composites manufactured
with a high cooling rate (6).The case of fabric based
composites is more complex since large resin pockets
are present and the size, shape, distriiution, and number of these depend on the type of fabric used.
Wakeman et aL (7) reported that laminates manufactured from commingled GF/PP fabrics had a nonuniform fiber distribution with streaks of dry glass
fibers. This could be due to separation of the Merent
fiber types during the weaving process because of the
large difference in stiffness between the reinforcing
fibers and the matrix fibers. Widespread fingering, i.e.,
a phenomenon where the molten matrix rushes ahead
locally within the dry fiber bed, also gives a nonuni-

form impregnation of the fibers (8).

These factors might
explain some of the variability in experimental results
that have been reported in the literature. Shrinkage
may occur when heating commingled yams and fabrics. A high draw ratio is used in the spinning of thermoplastic fibers and these will hence be highly oriented. On heating, the fibers will relax and distort the
fabric or fiber architecture (9).
Ye and Friedrich (5)concluded that it is important
to avoid slow cooling in order to prevent the formation
of spherulites, microcracks and voids, which all contribute to a large decrease in crack propagation energies in both Modes I and II. Shonaike et aL (10) found
that the strength of commingled GF/PET laminates
increased with an increased holding time. This was
attributed to an increased adhesion between fibers
and matrix. The mechanical properties of 0" and
O"/90 GF/PET laminates consolidated in an autoclave at pressures of 0, 0.3,0.7MPa were determined
by Andersen and Lystrup (11). As can be seen from
Table 1, the laminates consolidated in vacuum were of
the same quality as those manufactured at a higher
pressure: Table 1 . The effect of yam sizing was studied by Krucinska and Krucinski (12), who manufactured co-woven fabrics of glass fiber and polybutylene
terephthalate (GF/PBT) where the glass fibers were
sized with either a plastic size suitable for the PBT
matrix or a traditional textile sizing. The latter was
used to protect the yams from abrasion during the
weaving process and contained mainly starch and lubricants. The bendmg strength for laminates with the
same fiber volume fraction but with Merent sizes differed by a factor of 3.2 and the interlaminar shear
strength by a factor of 2.4: Table 1. Shonaike et aL
(13) observed that gradual coolug gave a higher flexural modulus in the fiber direction but a lower modulus in the transverse direction when compared with
rapid cooling of compression molded unidirectional
GF/PET composites: Table 1 . Very low values were
seen for the transverse strengths owing to a poor adhesion between the PET matrix and the glass fibers.
The higher bending modulus was attributed to the
presence of larger spherulites in the gradually cooled
specimens. On the other hand, a hgher frslcture toughness was seen for the rapidly cooled specimens. A

Table 1. Mechanical Propertiesof Commingled GF/Pl

Flexural Modulus

(%I

Flexural Strength
0"
(MPa)

45
45
45
56.0
55.8
66.6
40
40

842
387
395
810
250
820
1081
1098

33
19
20
40.5
30.2
43.4
38.5
36.0

Fiber
Volume Fraction
Material

Composites Found in the Literature.

0"

(GW

lnterlaminar
Shear Strength
(MPa)

Ref.

GF/PET, UD, 0.7MPa consolidation

GF/PET, twill, 0.7MPa consolidation
GF/PET, twill, vacuum consolidated
GF/PBT, UD, co-woven, plastic size
GF/PBT, UD, co-woven, textile size
GF/PBT, UD, co-woven, plastic size
GF/PET, UD, gradual cooling
GF/PET. UD. auenched

POLYMER C W O S f l E S , AUGUST lssS, Vol. 19, No. 4

361

Niklas Svensson, Roshan Shishoo, and Michael Gilchrist

more extensive review on manufacturing and mechanical properties of commingled thermoplastic composites can be found in Svensson et aZ. (14).
Hollow structural thermoplastic beams (commingled
GF/PET) and thermoset sandwich beams (GF/epoxy,
GF/polyester, GF/vinylester) were manufactured using
compression molding and resin transfer molding, respectively, by Svensson et aL (15).The beam preforms
were produced using woven and warp knitted fabrics
together with braiding. The beams were characterized
in three-point bending under both static and impact
load conditions. In both instances the failures initiated
at the compression side of the beams, more noticeably
so for the thermoplastic beams.
As mentioned previously, textile technology can be
used advantageously in the composites industry. In
this work, laminates manufactured from two novel fabrics and comrmngled GF/Pm yams have been characterized with respect to tension, in-plane shear, and
flexure. The behavior under impact load was also investigated. An extensive scanning electron microscopy
(SEW analysis has been carried out, and several micrographs are used to gain an understanding of the
fracture processes and to illustrate some of the advantages and problems with these new materials.

FYg. 1 . he woven fabric used for manufmtwing laminateS.

The mainfraction (5/6)of t h e w s run in the warp direction,
which is lefr/right in the photograph

EXPERIMENTAL

The commingled yam used for production of the

laminates in this work contained glass fibers and PET
fibers with a glass fiber volume fraction of 5@!. The
yams were produced by means of air-jet texturizing
(11). Laminates were manufactured from two different
fabrics, i.e., one woven and one warp knitted. The
woven fabric was tailored with the main fraction of the
fibers in the warp direction (100 warp yams and 20
weft yams per 1OOmm) as seen in RLJ.1. The warp
knitted fabric was unidirectional and the commingled
yam rovings were held together by a thin PET binding
yarn. Hgwe 2 shows the warp knitted fabric, and Q. 3
is an optical micrograph of the binding yarn. The
binding yam spacing was 19.7 mm and there were 94
warp yams per 1OOmm.
The formability, i.e., bending and shear properties,
and the compressional behavior of the two fabrics
were examined by means of the Kawabata Evaluation
System (KES) (16).which is a well-known system for
the characterization of mechanical properties and surface properties of fabrics and nonwoven materials.
The two fabrics were cut and stacked in the appropriate number of layers and fiber angles to produce
unidirectional and cross-ply laminates with a target
thickness of 3 mm. The laminate dimensions were
350 X 350mm.Steel guide bars were used to obtain a
uniform laminate thickness. The consolidation pressure was hence provided by the actual compaction of
the fabric stack to a thickness of 3 mm. Twenty layers
were used for the warp knitted fabric and 12 layers
for the woven fabric. The laminates were compression
molded in a hydraulic press between steel platens
coated with a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) release
362

FYg. 2. 7he warp knitted u n i d k c bnalfxbrlk. The commingled yams are held together by a thinPET binding y a m The
warp direction is iefr/right in thephotograph

FYg. 3. The thin PET binding yam (-jiorn

t o 4 holding the commingled warp bundles @J-.

top to h t Mag@-

cation X50.

POLYMER COMPOSITES, AUGUST 1998, Vol. 19, No. 4

Fabrication and Mechanical Response of Commingled GF/PET Composites

higher for the woven material; this was due to the

crimp in the fiber architecture which gave a lower stiffness for the fabric. The compression energy, WC, is a
measure of the amount of energy required to reach a
certain compactional force in the material and, among
others, is dependent upon the compression stiffness
of the fabric, the fiber-to-fiber friction, and the fiber
architecture. This energy was 65% higher for the warp
knitted fabric than for the woven. The thickness of the
fabric at maximum compression, lM,was 30% lower
for the warp knitted than for the woven fabric: test
values for the two fabrics are seen in Table 2. The values for a typical woven wool suit fabric are included
as a reference (17). The Kawabata Evaluation System
has previously been used by Ramasamy and Wang
(18)for the characterization of powder coated and commingled carbon fiber/nylon tows.
Shishoo and Choroszy (19) developed a measure of
the fabric formability using three of the material parameters as determined by means of KES:

agent. The mold was heated to 210C within 20 min

and the consolidation time was 20 min. Water was
used for cooling and the cooling rate was 21C/min.
Pressure was applied during heating as well as during
cooling. Some slight warpage was seen for some of the
laminates.
The glass fiber volume fraction for all the laminates
was determined by matrix bum-off in an oven and
was 48.1% on average with a standard deviation of
1.2%. The quality of the laminates was examined by
observing polished cross sections in an optical microscope.
The tensile properties in the warp and weft directions of the two different kinds of laminates were determined in accordance with ASTM D3039. The inplane shear behavior was determined by means of
tensile testing of cross-ply specimens with fiber angles
of ? 45" as described in the ASTM D3518 standard.
The flexural properties of the laminates were determined in the warp and weft directions using a threepoint bend test, ASTM D790M. with a span to thickness ratio of 16:1.

formability

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

BXEMT
2HG5

The formability was calculated for the woven GF/

Pm material, the warp knitted GF/PET material and
the reference wool fabric, see Table 2. For the two
m e n materials an average of the warp and weft properties were used, whereas for the warp knitted fabric
only the warp EMT value was used due to difficulties
in measuring the elongation of only the thin binding
yams. The warp knitted fabric had a marginally h a er formability than the woven GF/PET fabric. Both
the commingled yarn fabrics were more formable than
the reference wool material, mainly because of the low
shear losses and the hgh bendrng stihess glass fibres.
In the optical microscopy examination the crimp in
the woven laminates was clearly seen (Fig.4). This
particular reinforcement microstructure was also responsible for the large resin pockets that form in the
material, which also can be seen in Fig. 4 and in an
SEM micrograph of a mixed mode fracture surface,
Flg. 5. The fiber distribution was good outside the
resin pockets. The reinforcing fibers in the warp knitted fabrics were non-crimped and hence the number

The particular fiber architectures made the fabrics

very drapable in the weft direction but also thereby
difficult to handle and align, especially the warp knitted fabric. Variations in fiber angles between the plies
in the laminates were almost inevitable.
The results from the characterization of the fabrics
(for clarity the nomenclature h m the Kawabata Standard is used throughout this paper) showed that the
woven material had a higher shear modulus, G, as
well as a higher shear hysteresis, 2HG5, than the
warp knitted material. The bending stifhess, B, of the
warp knitted fabric was greater in the warp direction.
The values for the weft direction were several orders of
magnitudes lower: this was due to the thin PET binding yams. The same observations were made for
bending hysteresis, 2HB. The shear and bending hysteresis in a fabric depends on factors such as the
fiber-to-fiber friction, the fiber architecture, and the
mechanical properties of the fibers. The elongation
under a tensile load of 491 N/m, EMT, was slightly

Table 2. The Results From the Formability and Compressibility Characterization of the Woven and the Warp Knitted GFlPET Fabrics
Using the Kawabeta Evaluation System (KES). A Typical Suit Meterial, i.e., a Woven Wool Fabric, is Given as a Reference (17).

Shear modulus, G, (N/mx")

Shear hysteresis,2HG5, (N/m)
Bending modulus, warp, B,
Nm%)
Bending modulus, weft, B,
Nm2/m)
Bending hysteresis,warp, 2HB, (10-2 Nm/m)
Bending hysteresis,weft, 2HB, (lo+ NWm)
Tensile extension, warp, EMT, (%)
Tensile extension, weft, EMT, (%)
Compression energy, WC, (102 Nm/rn2)
Compression thickness, TM, (mm)
Formability,(BxEMT)/2HG5, (lo-')

POLYMER COMPOSITES, AUGUST ISM, Vol. 19, No. 4

Woven
GFlPET

Warp Knitted
GFlPET

Wool
Fabric

0.80
1.73
1.71
0.33
3.25
0.77
0.69
0.65
0.28
1.oo
0.40

0.54

2.34
6.19
0.24
0.24
0.10
0.10
4.99
4.99
0.21
0.61
0.19

0.87
1.53
0.002
3.68

0.55

0.47
0.70
0.48

363

Niklas Svensson, Roshan Shishoo, and Michael Gilchrist

Flg. 4. An optical micrographfrom

a polished cross section of a muen
laminate. The crimp of the glass
j%er yams is clearly seen (ie. the
curued yarns running from left to
right). In the center of the micrograph is a large resin pocket which
has formeddue to uleactualj%er
architecture.

FYg. 5. An SEM micrographfrom a mized modefracture SUTface showing a b e resin pocket in a woven laminate.

and size of resin pockets were smaller. Cracks were

occasionally seen in and between the fiber bundle in
both types of laminates; Rg. 6. Very clean glass fibers
were seen on the fracture surfaces, here in pure Mode
II, indicating poor fiber/rnatrix adhesion; Rg. 7. More
details on the mixed mode fracture behavior of the
two materials can be found in Svensson et aL (20).
Voids in the resin rich regions were seen only occasionally in the examined laminates.
The results from the tensile tests are given in Table
3. For the tests in the warp direction no major matrix
cracking or fiber fractures could be heard prior to failure of the test specimens, which occurred very suddenly. A small stiffening of the materials was apparent
as the load increased. This can be explained by reorientation of the misaligned glass fibers during loading.
The warp knitted laminates were slightly stiffer than
the woven laminates and both materials were equally
strong. In the weft direction the woven laminates were
stiffer and stronger due to the reinforcing glass fibers
in the weft yams. The edge view in Rg. 8 shows that
364

FYg. 6. Fine cracks were occasionally obserued in and between t

h
e
mbundles. Magnification X 100.

extensive delaminations and fiber pull-out have taken

place during the fracture of a woven tensile specimen.
Rgure 9 shows the surface from a woven tensile specimen, and the architecture of the fabric with distinct
warp and weft yams can still be seen after the failure.
In the warp knitted laminates some longitudinal splitTable 3. The MechanicalProperties
of the Two Different GF/Pl Laminates.
The Standard Deviation Is Given in Brackets
Woven

Warp Knitted

Tensile modulus, OD, (GPa)

Tensile strength, O", (MPa)
Tensile modulus, go", (GPa)
Tensile strength, go", (MPa)
In-planeshear modulus (GPa)
In-planeshear strength (MPa)
Flexural modulus, 0", (GPa)
Flexural strength, 0", (MPa)
Flexural modulus, go", (GPa)
Flexural strength, go", (MPa)

22.9
510
6.9
131
4.4
99
29.0
494
10.7
214

(2.1)
(28)
(1.4)
(6)
(1.3)
(1)
(1.3)
(36)
(0.2)
(9)

28.2
487
3.5
6.6
4.3
88
35.0
747
4.6
25

(1.4)
(26)
(0.6)
(1)
(0.9)
(15)
(1.3)
(20)
(1.4)
(4)

POLYMER COMPOSITES,AUGUST 1998, Vol. 19, No. 4

Fabrication and Mechanical Response of Commingled GF/PET Composites

Q. 7. Very cleanfibers were seen on thefracture surfaces,

here a pure Mode Iffracture of a woven lamina&, indicating
prfiber//matriwadheswn

Q. 8. An edge view of a woven tensile specimen showing

extensive interlaminar damage (ClehmiMtio~a n d j z m p u l l Out.

place during heating owing to the relaxation and contraction of the PET fibers.The woven material cannot
be easily modeled by the rule of mixtures, but the
properties in the warp direction should be lower than
for the warp knitted because of the smaller fraction of
glass fibers in this direction and also because of the
crimp in the fiber architecture. Correspondingly, the
properties in the weft direction should be higher,
which agrees well with the experimental results. A
good agreement between the predictions using the
rule of mixtures and the mechanical properties of
braided commingled GF/nylon composites was observed by Fujita et aL (22).
The shear modulus for the two materials were similar and the woven laminates were marstronger
than the warp knitted laminates; Table 3. The scatter
in shear properties was larger for the warp knitted
laminates.
In flexure the warp knitted laminates were stronger
and stiffer than the woven laminates in the warp
direction while the woven laminates were stronger
and stiffer when tested in the weft direction. Again,
this was due to the reinforcing glass fibers in the
weft yams of the woven laminates. The stiffness and
strength in the weft direction were very low for the
warp knitted laminates. The values of the moduli were
significantly higher in flexure than in tension, and
these are in good agreement with the values predicted
by the rule of mixtures equation. Similar observations
have previously been made for textile composites by,
for example, Miider et aL (23),who determined the
tensile modulus for warp knitted biaxial GF/PP to be
19.2 GPa and the flexural modulus to be 23.8 GPa.
The flexural modulus is dependent upon the stackmg
sequence and may also be less sensitive to the properties of the fiber/matrix adhesion and to fiber misalignment. For both materials the failures initiated on the
compressive side under the loadmg pin. Cracks and
limited delaminations propagated from this initial failure until final rupture. In the woven laminates cracks

ting occurred at failure. The transverse tensile failures

of the warp knitted laminates resembled those of a
pure thermoplastic while the woven laminates behaved in a similar elastic manner in both the warp
and weft directions.
Assuming a glass fiber modulus of 72.0 GPa, a PET
modulus of 3.0 GPa, and a fiber volume fraction of
48.loh,the rule of mixtures predicts a tensile modulus of 36.2 GPa for a unidirectional laminate. The
transverse modulus is predicted to be 6.3 GPa if the
Poisson contraction effect is taken into account (21).
The experimental values of the tensile properties,
T&le 3, were sllghtly lower than expected and than
those predicted by the rule of mixtures. For the warp
knitted laminates,which were considered as unidirectional, the longitudinal and transverse moduli were
28.2 GPa and 3.5 GPa. The large deviations were
probably due to the poor fiber/matrix adhesion and
misalignment during stacking. An additional distortion of the fiber architecture may also have taken
POLYMER COMPOSITES, AUGUST WSS, Voi. 19, No. 4

FYg. 9. The surfae of a woven tensile specimen Thefabric

architedure with distinct warp and we@ yams is still apparent ajterf-e.
365

Niklas Svensson, R o s h n Shishoo, and Michael Gilchrist

Flg. 10. 7he Compression damage under the loading pin that
initiated jinal failure in a woven three-point bending speci-

men

FYg. 11. A micrograph showing the macrocrack on the tensile

surface of a wovenjlexural specimen

seen from the micrographs of the tensile damage of a

woven and a warp knitted specimen, Rgs. 1 1 and 12,
respectively. Typical load/deflection curves of the
woven and warp knitted specimens can be seen in Rg.
13. The warp knitted laminates had a higher failure
load but exhibited a larger drop in load bearing capabilities. In all cases the tests were stopped manually
after this load drop since the toughness of the materials prevented the specimens from completely fracturing before the specimens folded in between the supports of the bending jig, i.e., the graphs in Rg. 13 do
not show the ultimate flexural strain.
The results from the mechanical characterization
are summarized in Table 3.The standard deviation for
the different tests are also given. Large scatter was
seen, especially so for the shear, transverse tension,
and transverse flexure of the warp knitted laminates.
This can be explained by the fiber/matrix interfacial
properties and the variations in fiber angles in the
laminates.
St. John (1) reported that the poor compressional
strength of the matrix limited the flexural strength of
GF/PP laminates that could be obtained. Preliminary
results for a similar GF/PET yarn showed a linear relation between strength and fiber content due to the
superior shear strength of the PET matrix. Hamada et
aL (24) examined the flexural properties of compression molded commingled GF/nylon composites. At
short consolidation times, buckling and cracks appeared on the compression side during three-point
bend tests. At longer consolidation times the failures
initiated as fiber fractures on the tensile side of the
specimen. Choi et aL (25) observed scatter in the results in three point bending tests of unidirectional
glass fiber reinforced polyamide (GF/PA6) laminates
and attributed this to poor fiber/matrix interfaces,
misaligned fiber bundles, and resin rich regions. A
large plastic energy absorption was seen, and this coincided with crushing-like failures on the compression
face of the specimens. The span to thickness ratio used
was 33.3:1. The matrix had undergone large plastic

2500
2000

FYg. 12. Thedamageon thetensilesw-jkeof a warp knitted

jl.exuralspecimen The*fmctures
OcCLvred in the distinct
bundles.

500

366

* .-.
. ..

.._...
Watp knitted

t/
0

were also seen to propagate along adjacent weft bundles. The compression damage from a woven specimen can be seen in Rg. 10.Fracture took place on the
tensile side within the glass fiber yarns, as can be

Deflection (mm)
R g . 13. Typical load deflection curues from the three-point
bending tests. The warp knitted laminates were stronger but
exhibited a larger drop in load carrying capabilities after initialfracture.
POLYMER COMPOSITES, AUGUST 1998, Vol. 19, No. 4

Fabrication and Mechanical Response of Commingled GF/PET Composites

Fig. 15. A warp knitted impacted ~ o s s - p l yspecimen. The

main cracks were in all casesformed in thejiberdiredions.

FXg. 14. Extensine delamination seen in a back-lit woven

impacted crossply laminate.

deformation during crack propagation. Initially it was

believed that the flexural failures were a combination
of tension and shear, even though a span to thickness
ratio of 1 6 1 was used. However, the majority of the
results available in the literature do describe failures
as crushmg damage on the compression face or matrix initiated even at span to thickness ratios higher
than 16:1. Hence it is believed that the compressional
strength of the matrix limits the flexural performance
of thermoplastic matrix laminates.
The material used in this work showed a poor fiber/
matrix adhesion, which might partly explain the lower
than expected mechanical properties. Observations of
the fiber/matrix bonding quality in commingled glass
fiber composites vary. Ye and Friedrich (5) examined
GF/PET laminates in Mode I and Mode II crack propagation. In all cases matrix was seen on the fibers on the
fracture surfaces, indicating a good interfacial bonding.
Shonaike et aL (10)reported that the three-point bending fractures in GF/PET initiated in the matrix and
not along the fiber/matrix interface, which was indicative of a good bonding. Jang and Kim (26)improved the flexural strength and the interlaminar shear
strength of co-woven carbon fiber reinforced polyetheretherketone (CF/PEEK) laminates by 52% and
16%. respectively, by means of a 3 min low temperature oxygen plasma treatment. The effect of plasma
treatment in the present material system will be evaluated.
Drop weight impact tests were carried out in order
to investigate the material behavior at higher defomation rates. The impactor was a hemisphere with a
radius of 5 mm. The weight of the impactor was 14.26
kg and the drop height 0.97 m resulted in an impact
energy of 136 J and an impact velocity of 4.4 m/s.
Both the woven and the warp knitted laminates used
for these experiments were symmetric cross ply lamiPOLYMER COMPOSITESyAUGUST 19MyVol. 19, No. 4

nates. The woven laminates were 3 mm thick while

the warp knitted laminates had a thickness of 4 mm.
The size of the specimens were 60 X 60 mm. The
specimens were freely supported by a stiff metal ring
with an inner diameter of 40 mm. Extensive delaminations and cracking occurred in both materials as
can be seen in the back-lit woven Sample in Rg. 14.
The warp knitted sample, Fig. 15, shows the main
cracks in the 0" and 90"direction which were present
in all Samples.
Rgures I6 through 19 show SEM micrographs from
different areas of an impacted woven sample. Large
plastic deformation of the matrix and a considerable
amount of fiber fracture occurred during the impact.
If the area of delamination is taken as a measure of
impact resistance, the woven laminates were superior
to the warp knitted laminates, which in some cases
almost split up along the mid-plane; Rg. 20.
Plastic deformation is possible in the PET matrix
even at fairly high deformation rates, as was shown in
the impact tests. The flexural failures were very gradual, which indicated the ability of the material to absorb large amounts of energy. The fiber architecture of
the woven laminates tended to limit the extent of
delamination efficiently because of the interlacement

Cracking

Fig. 19

Fig. 17

\
Fig. 18

Delamination

Fig. 16. A schematic diagmm of a sectioned impact specimen

and the locations where the micrographs of Figures 17-19
were takenThe topface of the specimen was impacted

367

Niklas Svensson, Roshan Shishoo, and Michael Gilchrist

Fig. 17. Fiberfracturesandmatriwcrmkingatthetopfme

where the impactor hit the specimen

preforms giving excellent composite mechanical properties can be produced. The tensile, in-plane shear, and
flexural properties of GF/PET composites has been
determined experimentally. The laminates were compression molded from novel warp knitted and woven
fabrics produced by commingled GF/PET yams. The
Kawabata Evaluation System was successfully employed to estimate the formability and compressibility
of the two fabrics. The laminate quality was examined
by means of optical and scanning electron microscopy. Few voids were found and the laminate quality
was good. Resin pockets appeared in the woven laminates, and these were originated from the architecture
of the woven fabric. The strength of the fiber/matrix
interface was poor. The tensile properties were slightly
lower than predicted, and this was attributed to a poor
fiber/matrix adhesion and fiber misalignment. The
flexural performance of the laminates was limited by
the compressional strength of the PET matrix. However, the materials are believed to have large energy
absorption capabilities both in static loading and under
impact. This is thought to be due to fiber misalignments, the toughness of the matrix, and the extensive
fiber pull-out present because of the poor fiber/matrix
adhesion.

Fig. 18. Large plastic deformation of the matrix, which has

been sheared by the impactor.

of the warp and weft yams. The slight fiber misalignment in the fabrics together, the formation of resin
pockets during manufacturing, and the poor fiber/
matrix interface giving extensive fiber pull-out all contribute to a high apparent fracture toughness of the
two materials. Little is known about the fatigue performance of textile thermoplastic composites, but work
has been initiated by the authors to investigate the
degradation of mechanical properties resulting from
cyclic loadings.
From the literature survey conducted it is obvious
that there is a lack of complete material data for commingled composites. Usually, only the flexural modulus and strength and interlaminar shear strength are
reported, and this is of course due to the simplicity of
canying out these tests. Processing optimization has
not yet been obtained for commingled materials, and
problems with voids, fiber misalignments, microcracks,
and fiber/matrix adhesion persist.

Fig. 19. M w f i m m m s were seen in the impact specimens where the impactor hndpeneirated the back fme.

CONCLUSIONS

By means of textile technologies such as fiber inter-

mingling, weaving, braiding, and knitting, advanced

368

Fig. 20. Delamination of an impacted warp knitted specimen

that almost split up along the mid-plane.
POLYMER COMPOSITES, AUGUST 1998, Vol. 19, No. 4

Fabrication and Mechanical Response of Commingled GF/PET Composites

REFERENCES
1. C. St. John, Proc. ICCM-10, p. 757,Whistler, Canada
( 1995).
2. A. Beehag and L. Ye, J. ?hennoplastic Compos. Mater.,
S, 129 (1996).
3. W. Michaeli and M. Goedel. Proc. TecNextil Symposium,
Frankfurt, Germany (1993).
4. W. Michaeli and D. Jiirss, Proc. of TecNextil Symposium.
Frankfurt,Germany, (1994).
5. L. Ye and K. Friedrich, Composites, 14.557(1993).
6. L. Ye, A. Beehag,and K. Friedrich, Compos. Sci TechnoL,
SS, 167 (1995).
7. M. D. Wakeman, T. A. Cain, C. D. Rudd, A. C. Long,
4th Intematm
. nal conf. Automated
and R Brooks, h.
Composites, p. 325,Nottingham, United Kingdom, (September 1995).
8. A.G. Gibson and J.-A. Mhson, Compos. ManuJ, 3,223
( 1992).
Institutes 77th World Confm9. N. Svensson, Proc. T&
ence, p. 425,Tampere, Finland (May 1996).
10. G. 0.Shonaike. M. Matsuda. H. Hamada. Z. Maekawa,
and T. Matsuo, Corryms. Interfizes, 2 , 157 (1994).
11. T.L. Andersen and A. Lystrup, Proc. 4th International
Con$ AutoComposites, p. 195,Nottingham, United
Kingdom (September 1995).
12. I. Krucinska and S. Krucinski. Roc. ICCE/3, p. 467,
New Orleans (1996).

POLYMER COMPOSITES, AUGUST 1998, Vol. 19, No. 4

13.G. 0.Shonaike, H. Hamada, 2. Maekawa, M. Matsuda,

T. Yuba. andT. Matsuo. J. ?hermoplasticCompos.Mater..,
@, 76 (1996).
14. N. Svensson, R. Shishoo, a n d M . Gilchrist, J.
Thermoplastic Compos. M e . , 11,22 (1998).
15. N. Svensson, P.Tollemark, and W. Hansson, Proc. Techtewtil Symposium,Frankhrt. Germany (1997).
16.Man& for KES,Kato Tekko Co., Japan.
17.H.E.S.C. Standard of Hand Evaluation, N o 1 , KOSHI
( s t t t e s s ) , Hand evaluation and standardization committee, Japan (1975).
18.A. Ramasamy, Y. Wang, and J. Mumy, Polym Compos.,
17,497 (1996).
19. R Shishoo and M. Choroszy, Tewtile Asia, Dec. 1990.
p. 64.
20. N. Svensson, M. Gilchrist. and R. Shishoo, accepted for
publication in J. Compos.Mater. (1998).
21. D. Hull, A n Introduction to Composite Materials, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England (1981).
22. A. Fujita, Z.Maekawa. H. Hamada, M. Matsuda. andT.
Matuso, J. Rein- h t Compos., 12,156 (1993).
23. E. Mader, K. Skop-Cardarella.W. Z&, and G. Wagener,
Roc. TechtexH Symposium, Frankfurt, Germany, (1997).
24. H. Hamada, 2.4.Maekawa, N. Ikegawa, T. Matsuo, and
M. Yamane, P o l y n Compos., 14,308(1993).
25. N. S.Choi, H. Yamaguchi, and K. Takahashi, J. Compos.
Mater., SO, 760 (1996).
26. J. Jang and H. Kim, Polym. Compos., 18. 125 (1997).

369