Impact and Ballistic Response of Hybridized 

Thermoplastic Laminates

by Lionel Vargas-Gonzalez, Shawn M. Walsh, and James Wolbert

ARL-MR-0769 February 2011

Approved for public release; distribution 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.
Army Research Laboratory

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005

ARL-MR-0769 February 2011

Impact and Ballistic Response of Hybridized 

Thermoplastic Laminates

Lionel Vargas-Gonzalez, Shawn M. Walsh, and James Wolbert

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 
ii

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

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)

February 2011

2. REPORT TYPE

Final

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

15 October 2009 to 20 August 2010

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Impact and Ballistic Response of Hybridized Thermoplastic Laminates

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Lionel Vargas-Gonzalez, Shawn M. Walsh, and James Wolbert

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Research Laboratory

ATTN: RDRL-WMM-D

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

ARL-MR-0769

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 unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

Recent Army research has focused on the use of thermoplastic-based polymer laminates for mass-efficient ballistic helmets. 

The focus of this work was to develop an understanding of how hybridization of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene 

(UHMWPE) thermoplastic with various other thermoplastic and thermoset materials would affect ballistic performance and 

back face deformation. Panels of various material combinations and of varying architectures were processed and tested. 

Architecturally hybridized panels of UHMWPE exhibited the highest resistance to dynamic backface deformation. Generally, 

there were tradeoffs between ballistic performance and backface deformation within the variations of architecturally 

hybridized composites. However, several of the panels (the 50/50 and 90/10 hybrid series) exhibited projectile resistances 

comparable, and in a few cases superior, to that of the [0/90] plate while still exhibiting a higher level of deformation 

resistance.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Backface deformation, UHMWPE, Ballistic Helmet, Digital Image Correlation

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

17. LIMITATION

OF ABSTRACT

UU

18. NUMBER

OF PAGES

26

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Lionel Vargas-Gonzalez

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

(410) 306-0917

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii

Contents

List of Figures iv

List of Tables iv

Acknowledgments v

1. Introduction 1

2. Experimental 1

3. Results 2

4. Conclusion 15

5. References 16

Distribution List 17
iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Deformation data for hybrid laminates as measured through DIC method following 

gas gun impact (.22 cal FSP ball, 405.7 ± 6.7 m/s). The hybrid panels exhibit the lowest 

dynamic and residual deflection through all samples. Kevlar and [0/90] HB25 layup are 

similar in performance. ..............................................................................................................6

Figure 2. Material response through the first millisecond following gas gun impact (.22 cal 

FSP ball, 405.7 ± 6.7 m/s). All HB25 laminates exhibit similar frequency 

characteristics, regardless of layup design. The aramid panel exhibits a unique 

characteristic frequency. ............................................................................................................7

Figure 3. DIC images showing the maximum extent of deformation in hybrid samples hit 

with the gas gun projectile. The material behavior can be seen clearly through the shape 

of the strain field exhibited on the DIC analysis........................................................................8

Figure 4. Ballistic performance plotted as a function of dynamic backface deformation 

(using 9 mm, 473.1 ± 3.6 m/s). As surmised, the stiffened panels generally exhibited 

lower projectile resistance values as the orientation percentage increased. ............................10

Figure 5. Variation in interlaminar delamination extent shown between samples of [0/90] 

and mixed hybrid laminates. The black borders measuring the extent of delamination 

were determined with the coin test method prior to light table imaging. Panel sizes are 

0.38 m × 0.38. ..........................................................................................................................12

Figure 6. Projectile impacts on various hybridized panels. The panels with orientation 

variance and multilayer design show higher delamination extent, which made it difficult 

to obtain multiple tests for merit factor determination. Panel sizes are 0.45 m × 0.45 m. ....13

Figure 7. Concept methods for simultaneously enabling both ballistic and structural 

performance in weight-efficient helmet configurations..........................................................14

List of Tables

Table 1. Deflection data for hybridized laminates..........................................................................2

Table 2. Deflection data from DIC testing for hybrid laminates. ...................................................5

Table 3. Performance data for HB25 hybrid panels. ......................................................................9

Table 4. Second round of performance data for HB25 hybrid panels. .........................................11
v

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the following: DSM Dyneema, DuPont, Honeywell, 

FiberForge, Ceradyne-Diaphorm, GENTEX, BAE Systems, MSA, and Intermaterials LLC; ARL 

SLAD PEEP Site; Natick Soldier RDEC; from PM-SPIE: Dr. James Q. Zheng; ARL WMRD 

Composites Shop; from ARL: Dr. Jian Yu, Mr. Pete Dehmer, and Dr. Brian Scott; from U.S. 

Army Natick Soldier RD&E Center: Janet Ward, Dr. Phil Cunniff, and Donald Lee.
vi

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
1

1. Introduction

Pursuit of mass-efficient materials and architecture for use in ballistic helmet technologies has

been the focus of many U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) projects in past research (1–6). 

Metals and ceramics are highly efficient ballistic materials, however, their relatively high penalty 

for weight compromises their usefulness in helmet technologies. Therefore, most of the 

researched ballistic helmet materials are in the area of lightweight polymer composites. 

Previously, the material of choice was lightweight Aramid. New manufacturing technologies 

and techniques have enabled the production of a ballistic helmet using thermoplastic ultra-high 

molecular weight polyethylene fibers, which exhibit the highest strength to weight ratios 

currently seen in any thermoplastic fiber material. However, one of the issues currently being 

faced by private manufacturers is the high deformation response of the backface in ballistic 

impact. The focus of this research is to determine if thermoplastic material can be improved 

through hybridization with other materials, or by clever use of architecture and orientation. 

Projectile and deformation response will be explored through experimental testing and 

innovative non-contact measurement methods. 

2. Experimental

Commercially available thermoplastic and thermoset materials were processed into composite 

laminates. The baseline materials for the study were [0/90] laminates comprised of UHMWPE 

materials, specifically Spectra Shield II 3130 (Honeywell Specialty Materials, Morristown, NJ)

and Dyneema HB25 (DSM, Geleen, The Netherlands). Hybridized panels consist of a skin or 

layer of a stiff thermoset or thermoplastic material on a Dyneema HB25 laminate. Multioriented panels or layers consist of HB25 laminates laid up in a quasi-isotropic fashion, with 

every two plies rotating clockwise 22.5°. Composite panels oriented in this manner are not 

necessarily symmetric; however, there were no issues with out of plane warpage or stress 

concentration. Care was taken to ensure that all of the panels had the same areal density 

(10.74 kg/m

2

or 2.2 lbs/ft2); layers of HB25 were removed to accommodate the weight of the 

stiffening materials. 

All sizes of laminate stacks tested for this work were consolidated and cured using a hydraulic

press (Wabash 800 Ton Press, Wabash MPI, Wabash, IN) at 338 tons (20.8 MPa over part) and 

125 °C for one hour. Hybrid laminates incorporating Tensylon (BAE Systems, Monroe, NC)

were processed at a marginally lower temperature (115.5 °C) and 13.8 MPa pressure, as per 

manufacturer specifications. 
2

Composite panels (0.38 m × 0.38 m) were tested ballistically with 9 mm, 124-grain FMJ rounds 

shot at a velocity of 473.13 ± 3.60 m/s. Backface deflection measurement was conducted using

high-speed imaging. The maximum extent of dynamic deflection was measured in the highspeed camera acquisition software, with the optical length scale calibrated using a standard 

calibration scale. Panel deflections were taken from both an overhead and a side perspective to 

correct any aberration in optical methods of measurement.

After this initial testing, several composite panels were down selected, and a few observations 

led to the development of various hybridized [0/90] and multi-oriented panels. Panels (0.254 m

× 0.254 m) were evaluated for dynamic and residual deformation using a laboratory gas gun and

digital image correlation (DIC) collection methods. All panels were impacted with a 5.56 mm 

440C steel ball bearing at a velocity of 405.7 ± 6.7 m/s. The velocity was kept as close to 

constant as possible through regulation of gas pressure in the charge. Velocities were measured 

through high-speed imaging and Doppler radar to ensure accuracy. Speckle patterns were 

applied to each test panel on the backface to enable the measurement of displacement and strain 

through DIC methods. Two Photron SA2 (Photron, USA) cameras mounted side by side create 

the ability to measure strain and displacement in the depth, as well as the length and width. All 

image analysis was performed using a commercially available image correlation package 

(Aramis, GOM mbH, Braunschweig, Germany). 

Projectile impact testing was performed at the PEEP Site test range on Aberdeen Proving 

Ground. Panels (0.45 m× 0.45 m) were laminated and tested in this series. Each test was 

performed in an area of the panel where no existing delamination was present to avoid variability 

in testing. Delamination extent in the panel between tests was determined by the coin tap test 

and light table methods. Five panels were made for each orientation setup.

3. Results

The results of the initial testing to determine the extent of backface deformation resistance due to 

material hybridization are shown in table 1. Many different types of hybrid combinations have 

been evaluated, yet, few points can be made about the resistance to deformation from the data. 

Table 1. Deflection data for hybridized laminates.

Panel Type

Velocity 

(f/s)

Overhead 

Deflection 

(mm)

Side 

Deflection 

(mm) Comment

HB25 (multi-orientation) 1421.64 5.563 7.5946

HB80 (multi-orientation) 1428.76 5.563 7.6454

HB80 (multi-orientation) + 2-ply Carbon 1429.51 6.680 6.5532 Shot on Carbon Face

HB25 (multi-orientation) 1419.77 6.680 7.5946

HB80 (multi-orientation) + 4-ply Carbon 1438.30 6.680 7.7216 Shot on Carbon Face
3

Table 1. Deflection Data for Hybridized Laminates (continued).

Panel Type

Velocity 

(f/s)

Overhead 

Deflection 

(mm)

Side 

Deflection 

(mm) Comment

HB25 Mixed Panel 50% MO and 50% 

[0/90] 1424.33 7.036 6.6294 Shot on [0/90] Face

HB25 Mixed Panel 40% MO and 60% 

[0/90] 1445.16 8.052 6.6294 Shot on [0/90] Face

HB25 Mixed Panel 25% MO and 75% 

[0/90] 1415.57 9.042 7.7216 Shot on [0/90] Face

HB25 Mixed Panel 10% MO and 90% 

[0/90] 1419.86 13.081 12.1412 Shot on [0/90] Face

50/50 Mix HB25/Tensylon II 1431.64 13.360 13.0556 Shot on HB25 Face

75/25 Mix HB25/Tensylon II 1426.95 13.360 15.2146 Shot on Tensylon Face

50/50 Mix HB25/Tensylon II 1432.00 13.564 13.0556 Shot on Tensylon Face

HB25 + 4-ply Carbon 1430.92 14.402 12.9794 Shot on HB25 Face

HB25 + 2-ply Carbon 1426.23 14.402 15.1384 Shot on HB25 Face

60/40 Mix HB25/Tensylon IV 1444.37 14.478 15.2146 Shot on HB25 Face

HB25 Mixed Panel 50% MO and 50% 

[0/90] 1450.38 15.088 15.4686

Shot on Multi-orientation 

Face

HB80 + 2-ply Carbon 1451.82 15.596 14.7066 Shot on Carbon Face

75/25 Mix HB25/Tensylon II 1428.26 15.596 15.1892 Shot on HB25 Face

HB80 + 705/CS800/Mark III (Stitched 

Cross 10 ply) 1437.61 15.596 15.2146 Shot on Stitched Face

HB80 + 705/CS800/Mark III (Stitched 

Hatch 10 ply) 1430.36 15.596 16.3068 Shot on Stitched Face

HB25 Mixed Panel 10% MO and 90% 

[0/90] 1438.60 15.596 17.4752

Shot on Multi-orientation 

Face

HB25 + 2 Layer K705 Phenolic 1422.00 15.646 15.1638 Shot on Aramid Face

60/40 Mix HB25/LF1 1424.06 15.646 16.256 Shot on HB25 Face

Dyneema HB80 1451.82 16.688 16.3068

90/10 Mix HB25/Tensylon IV 1428.00 16.688 18.4658 Shot on HB25 Face

HB25 + 4-ply Carbon 1450.00 16.688 18.4658 Shot on Carbon Face

50/50 Mix HB25/Tensylon IV 1445.00 16.688 19.558 Shot on Tensylon Face

HB25 + 2-ply LF1 1418.22 16.713 17.3482 Shot on LF1 Face

60/40 Mix HB25/Tensylon IV 1446.24 16.713 17.78 Shot on Tensylon Face

60/40 Mix HB25/LF1 1435.55 16.739 16.256 Shot on LF1 Face

2.2 PSF HB25 + 2 Layer GS + 2-ply 

Carbon 1420.46 16.764 16.3576 Shot on Carbon Face

HB25 + 3-ply LF1 1427.38 16.866 18.4404 Shot on LF1 Face

HB25 + 2 Layer K745 Phenolic 1418.00 16.891 16.2052 Shot on Aramid Face

Dyneema HB25 1430.00 17.120 16.3068

HB25 + 2 Layer GS 1453.00 17.145 17.4498 Shot on HB25 Face

HB25 + 4 Layer GS 1446.83 17.145 18.542 Shot on HB25 Face

HB25 Mixed Panel 40% MO and 60% 

[0/90] 1438.60 17.475 15.5956

Shot on Multi-orientation 

Face

HB25 + 2 Layer GS + 2-ply Carbon 1434.76 17.729 16.2052 Shot on Carbon Face

2.2 PSF HB25 + 2-ply Carbon 1412.65 17.729 16.256 Shot on Carbon Face

Tensylon IV 1420.00 17.729 18.3642

90/10 Mix HB25/Tensylon IV 1457.00 17.805 19.558 Shot on HB25 Face
4

Table 1. Deflection Data for Hybridized Laminates (continued).

Panel Type

Velocity 

(f/s)

Overhead 

Deflection 

(mm)

Side 

Deflection 

(mm) Comment

50/50 Mix HB25/Tensylon IV 1435.00 17.805 20.6502 Shot on Tensylon Face

HB25 + 705/CS800/Mark III 1452.00 17.805 20.6502 Shot on Aramid Face

HB25 + 6 Layer 707 1458.00 17.805 20.6502 Shot on Aramid Face

90/10 Mix HB25/Tensylon II 1425.31 17.831 18.4404 Shot on Tensylon Face

HB25 + 4-ply LF1 1431.91 17.831 18.4404 Shot on LF1 Face

HB25 Mixed Panel 25% MO and 75% 

[0/90] 1438.43 17.831 18.542

Shot on Multi-orientation 

Face

90/10 Mix HB25/Tensylon IV 1450.00 17.856 18.4658 Shot on HB25 Face

90/10 Mix HB25/Tensylon II 1437.65 17.856 19.5326 Shot on HB25 Face

2.2 PSF HB25 + 2 Layer GS 1457.56 18.872 17.3228 Shot on Goldshield Face

90/10 Mix HB25/Tensylon IV 1439.00 18.923 20.6502 Shot on Tensylon Face

Spectra SSII 3130 1421.00 26.264 26.0858

There is a large difference in deformation resistance between the various materials in the 

UHMWPE composite materials envelope. Spectra Shield II 3130 had the lowest deformation 

resistance of all samples. SSII 3130 exhibited a 53.4% higher deformation than the HB25 

material, 26.264 mm versus 17.120 mm, respectively. A negligible difference of 2.5% in the 

deformation performance is observed between the two Dyneema materials (HB25 and HB80). 

Therefore HB25 was used for the testing, as more was readily available.

Several of the hybrids were tested with the stiffer skin facing outward toward the strike face and 

inward toward the interior. Most of the hybrid combinations shot with the stiffer skin inward 

toward the interior performed better than the same skin with the skin on the strike face. For 

example, the HB25 + IM7 Carbon skin composite performed marginally better against

deformation when shot with the carbon inward (14.402 mm vs. 16.688 mm for the HB25 + 4-ply 

carbon samples). 

Although many materials and hybrid combinations of materials were evaluated, there was no 

indication that hybridized samples were making a substantial improvement in the deformation 

performance. The next effort was to determine the effectiveness of using quasi-isotropic 

orientation in whole panels, and as layers in [0/90] panels. While previous work suggested that 

any orientation variance would yield lower penetration resistance, there was no evidence as to 

how much these properties would deteriorate. In the 9 mm deformation testing, the multioriented panel performances were vastly superior to the [0/90] composite panels. [0/90] HB25 

exhibited a 125% higher deformation than that of the fully multi-oriented HB25 panel. 

Hybridized panels comprised of varying percentages of [0/90]/multi-oriented layers also 

generally performed better than the [0/90] composite panels. Panels with ratios of 10-50% 

multi-oriented content, which were ballistically excited on the multi-oriented side, were in the 

general spectrum of the [0/90] panel performance regime; generally speaking, those with higher 
5

(40–50%) multi-oriented content were on par or marginally better than the [0/90] panels, and

those under 40% were worse. Hybridized panels shot on the [0/90] side had low deformation 

values, however, it was assumed that these panels would not perform well in the penetration 

testing (as compared to the [0/90] composite panels). 

These test results led to the abandonment of further testing of thermoplastic/thermoset hybrid 

panels, and continuation of projectile testing on the hybridized multi-orientation/[0/90] panels. 

HB25 [0/90] and 50/50 hybrid multi-orientation/[0/90] composites were chosen for further 

analysis. Furthermore, a 25/50/25 hybridized panel was added to this test, where the total 

material count by weight would still be 50% multi-oriented and 50% [0/90], however, the 

material would be split to make a front and back face “skin” on these panels. For one set, 50% 

of the interior of the panel was [0/90], while the outside 25% of the panel on each face was 

multi-oriented. The other set had the reverse configuration. An aramid panel (K705) with a 

thermoset resin was also added in this test for a reference baseline. 

Table 2 shows the results obtained from the gas gun deformation testing, which uses image 

correlation (DIC) to provide non-contact 3-dimensional displacement and strain measurement. 

The max deflection is the maximum extent of out of plane displacement (in the z-direction) 

during the ballistic event, which occurs immediately after impact (less than 0.2 ms). The 

residual deflection is measured after the panel has reached an equilibrium deformation extent. 

Figure 1 illustrates the numbers graphically for each panel test. At this threat and velocity, 

Aramid and [0/90] HB25 perform similarly, with the Aramid panel having the slight advantage

in deformation resistance. Going to a monolithic multi-oriented panel reduces the dynamic 

maximum deflection over [0/90] by ~32%. In the 50/50 mixed hybrid samples, the panels tested,

using the [0/90] layer as the strike face, exhibited a lower deflection than the same panel being 

tested on the multi-orientation strike face. This behavior was also evident in the 25/50/25 panel; 

the panel with the [0/90] outer faces exhibited a lower deflection than the reverse layup. Figure 

2 shows the deflection in real time over the first millisecond following the impact of the panel 

with the threat. This information gives an indication into how the material behaves during 

impact. Interestingly, all HB25 composite panels have the same sinusoidal behavior and 

frequency, even with differences in the architecture of the panels. The Aramid panel has its own 

distinct frequency of energy dissipation.

Table 2. Deflection data from DIC testing for hybrid laminates.

Sample Max Deflection (mm)

Residual Deflection

(mm)

K705 Aramid (Phenolic) 3.156 1.284

[0/90] 3.303 1.486

Multi-oriented 2.255 1.139

50/50 Hybrid (Multi-oriented Strikeface) 2.522 1.175

50/50 Hybrid ([0/90] Strikeface) 2.120 1.079

25/50/25 Hybrid (Multi-oriented Faces) 2.342 1.163

25/50/25 Hybrid ([0/90] Faces) 2.090 0.847
6

Figure 1. Deformation data for hybrid laminates as measured through DIC method following gas gun impact 

(.22 cal FSP ball, 405.7 ± 6.7 m/s). The hybrid panels exhibit the lowest dynamic and residual deflection 

through all samples. Kevlar and [0/90] HB25 layup are similar in performance.
7

Figure 2. Material response through the first millisecond following gas gun impact (.22 cal FSP ball, 405.7 ± 

6.7 m/s). All HB25 laminates exhibit similar frequency characteristics, regardless of layup design. The 

aramid panel exhibits a unique characteristic frequency.

Illustrations of how the displacement wave is distributed on the panels during the instantaneous 

time marking the maximum extent of deflection is shown in figure 3. As shown with the graphs 

and numbers in the previous tables and figures, Aramid and [0/90] HB25 panels exhibited the 

highest dynamic deflection extent. These images reveal the pattern of deformation exhibited in 

each panel, which gives an indication of how the panel is strained. In the hybrid laminate panels

where the [0/90] component is on the backface, it is observed that the cardinal directions are 

being loaded the most, which shows that the load is primarily transferred down the fiber 

direction (0° and 90°). The multi-oriented panel, and the panels with multi-oriented outers and 
8

backfaces, show a more circular and further diameter of panel involvement. The load is 

transferred to fibers in all directions, which eventually spreads to involve the entire panel, as is 

evident in the high-speed videos of the impacts.

Figure 3. DIC images showing the maximum extent of deformation in hybrid samples hit with the gas gun 

projectile. The material behavior can be seen clearly through the shape of the strain field exhibited on the 

DIC analysis.

The projectile resistance data for all the HB25 hybrid panels are in the initial round are listed in 

table 3, and illustrated graphically in figure 4. For this test, three backface deformation tests 

were conducted with a 9 mm on each panel to obtain a more representative spread of values. 

These tests were done on the 0.145 m2panels, again with one shot per panel placed at the center. 

The projectile impact tests were performed on the 0.20 m2panels. Each panel was impacted as 

many times as could be managed without overlapping delaminated areas from previous tests. 

Following the initial testing, we made a second set of panels to explore 90/10, 75/25, and 60/40 

hybrid variations. The results for these test panels are listed in table 4 and included in figure 4. 
9

Table 3. Performance data for HB25 hybrid panels.

Type

BFD 

(mm)

Average 

BFD (mm)

St. Dev 

BFD 

(mm)

Measure of 

Resistance to 

Projectile 

Impact 

(norm)

St. Dev. 

Impact 

Testing

Multi-oriented 8.280 7.563 1.335 0.789 0.060

8.128

8.280

5.563

50/50 Hybrid ([0/90] 

Face) 7.036 8.261 1.737 0.847 0.00

6.502

9.754

9.754

50/50 Hybrid (MO 

Face) 15.088 16.002 1.489 1.025 0.034

16.332

14.630

17.958

[0/90] 17.120 18.542 1.208 1.000 0.029

19.583

17.958

19.507

25/50/25 Hybrid (MO 

Face) 17.577 13.987 3.213 0.888 0.004

11.379

13.005

25/50/25 Hybrid 

([0/90] Face) 9.322 9.068 0.842 0.887 0.007

8.128

9.754
Figure 4. Ballistic performance plotted as a function of dynamic backface deformation (using 9 mm, 473.1 ± 3.6 m/s). As surmised, the 

stiffened panels generally exhibited lower projectile resistance values as the orientation percentage increased.

10
11

Table 4. Second round of performance data for HB25 hybrid panels. 

Type

BFD 

(mm)

Measure of 

Resistance to 

Projectile 

Impact 

(norm)

St. Dev. 

Impact 

Testing

60/40 Hybrid (MO 

Face) 17.475 0.955 0.009

60/40 Hybrid ([0/90] 

Face) 7.036 0.874 0.007

75/25 Hybrid (MO 

Face) 17.831 1.009 0.026

75/25 Hybrid ([0/90] 

Face) 9.042 0.900 0.014

90/10 Hybrid (MO 

Face) 15.596 1.007 0.023

90/10 Hybrid ([0/90] 

Face) 13.081 0.916 0.023

The results prove that the multi-orientation layup of the polyethylene material has a deleterious 

effect to the penetration resistance. The penetration resistance of the multi-oriented panel is 

21.1% lower than that of the [0/90] panel. There was no change in the penetration resistance 

between the 25/50/25 samples when shot on either side, however, the deformation between them

varied widely, even within panels in the same series. The delamination was widespread and 

highly irregular (figure 5) versus the small, repeatable delamination exhibited in the [0/90] panel, 

which led to the high standard deviation in backface deformation of the 25/50/25 (Multi Face) 

hybrid sample. The large delamination in the mixed hybrid panels also had an impact on the 

repeatability of projectile testing. Because of the large delamination extent in these panels, it 

was difficult to obtain more than 5‒6 test on each panel, making it difficult to obtain the 

threshold merit factor. The effects of the phenomena are shown in figure 6. The behavior of the

[0/90] panel was more predictable, and had a smaller area of delamination behind each shot, 

making it easier to place more shots on each panel. For the 25/50/25 hybrids, three to four tests

per panel were all that would fit in the panel without encroaching on previous delamination, 

which appreciably could affect the merit testing. However, since the merit value was based on

tests on more than one panel, it is safe to assume that these merit factors are within an acceptable 

error. The result for the 50/50 (Multi Face) hybrid panel was surprising, as it exhibited a slightly 

lower backface deformation yet also had the highest projectile resistance (2.5% higher than 

[0/90]). The second round of tests, which included the 60/40, 75/25, and 90/10 hybrids were 

performed based on the surprising 50/50 hybrid results. These orientation and architecture 
12

variations did not yield any higher penetration resistance than the 50/50 (Multi Face) hybrid. 

However, these panels yield varying compromise between backface deformation and penetration 

resistance, depending on the layup and the strike side. In general, the results prove that there is a 

tradeoff between stiffness and penetration resistance. However, this information is advantageous 

because it gives the end user high versatility for selecting a hybrid variant that will give the ideal 

mechanical behavior necessary for the intended application. 

Figure 5. Variation in interlaminar delamination extent shown between samples of [0/90] and mixed hybrid 

laminates. The black borders measuring the extent of delamination were determined with the coin 

test method prior to light table imaging. Panel sizes are 0.38 m × 0.38.
13

Figure 6. Projectile impacts on various hybridized panels. The panels with orientation variance 

and multilayer design show higher delamination extent, which made it difficult to 

obtain multiple tests for merit factor determination. Panel sizes are 0.45 m × 0.45 m.
14

The ultimate goal is for these new materials and hybrids to manifest themselves into new head 

protection systems that enable either the same level of protection at lighter weight or helmets 

with significantly high protection as the same current helmet weight. Thermoplastic matrices, 

together with both aramid and UHMPWE fibers, have tremendous potential, but they carry some 

complexities that must be addressed if these materials are to be used successfully in new helmet 

applications. The key complexities are the relative soft structural response of these materials, 

making both static and dynamic deformations a potentially limiting criterion in certain 

applications. Our present work explores in more detail the relationship between back face 

deformation and materials response (including monolithic, hybridized, and alternative fiber 

orientations) and to then correlate this with the influence on ballistic response. The goal is to 

develop sufficient understanding to enable the most robust and optimal use of these materials. 

Consistent with previous efforts, it is likely that meeting all helmet criteria simultaneously will 

require innovations at multiple levels, including materials selection, fiber types, resin types, 

bonding, hybridization, and micro and macro stiffening concepts (to include skins, chassis, and 

other novel stiffening design elements and approaches). Figure 7 summarizes some of the 

possible combinations to enable new performance levels that address both ballistic and structural 

requirements.

TP aramid/carbon

Monolithic UHMWPE

Internal and External carbon skins 

with UHMWPE core

ARL external carbon skin 

with carbon rim stiffener 

concept with UHMWPE core

Co-formed PPS carbon with 

sheet-formed TP aramid 

core

ARL “chassis” carbon 

stiffening system with 

UHMWPE core

Co-formed PEKK carbon 

shell and UHMPWE core

TP aramid/carbon

Monolithic UHMWPE

Internal and External carbon skins 

with UHMWPE core

ARL external carbon skin 

with carbon rim stiffener 

concept with UHMWPE core

Co-formed PPS carbon with 

sheet-formed TP aramid 

core

ARL “chassis” carbon 

stiffening system with 

UHMWPE core

Co-formed PEKK carbon 

shell and UHMPWE core

Figure 7. Concept methods for simultaneously enabling both ballistic and structural performance 

in weight-efficient helmet configurations.
15

4. Conclusion

The goals of this work were to develop a database of knowledge in order to discern how material 

hybridization and architecture affect ballistic and impact response. Thermoplastic and thermoset 

polymer composite materials were hybridized into laminates and impacted to determine 

projectile resistance and backface deformation. Material-hybridized panels did not meet the 

goals of large reduction in backface deformation. Structurally hybridized panels, made from 

ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene materials, exhibited the most improvement in resistance 

to dynamic and residual deformation. The deformation response of the panel varied from the 

least deformation, with the fully quasi-isotropic panel, to the most deformation, with the [0/90]

panel. All the rest of the hybridized panels exhibited varying levels of deformation response and 

projectile resistance within those two extremes. Several of the panels (the 50/50 and 90/10 

hybrid series) exhibited projectile resistances comparable, and in a few cases superior, to that of 

the [0/90] plate. This, combined with the higher level of deformation resistance, makes the 

50/50 and 90/10 hybrid samples ideal candidates for further evaluation.

Future objectives include continuing to explore other structurally hybridized panels in order to

find other optimal hybrid combinations. Transitioning these architectures into useful geometries, 

such as ballistic helmets, will also be pursued and evaluated to determine the effect of shape on 

ballistic behavior. The influence of hydroclaving and other high uniform pressure processes on 

bulk performance properties is currently underway, and will build on the material 

characterization work of this report.
16

5. References

1. Riewald, P. G.; Folgar, F.; Yang, H. H.; Shaughnessy, W. F. Lightweight Helmet from a 

New Aramid Fiber. Proc. 23rd SAMPE Tech. Conf., N.Y. 1991.

2. Walsh, S. M.; Scott, B. R.; Spagnuolo, D. M.; Wolbert, J. Examination of Thermoplastic 

Materials for Use in Ballistic Applications. Society for Manufacturing Processing 

Engineering International Symposium, May 2007. 

3. Walsh, S. M.; Scott, B.; Spagnuolo, D. The Development of a Hybrid Thermoplastic 

Ballistic Material with Application to Helmets; ARL-TR-3700; U.S. Army Research 

Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, December 2005.

4. Walsh, S. M.; Scott, B.; Spagnuolo, D.; Wolbert, J. Composite Helmet Fabrication Using 

Semi-Deformable Tooling. Society for Manufacturing Processing Engineering International 

Symposium, May 2006. 

5. Walsh, S. M.; Spagnuolo, D. M.; Scott, B. R. The Potential Advantages of Thermoplastic 

and Hybridized Ballistic Materials and Processes for U.S. Army Helmet Development. 

SAMPE Proceedings, Long Beach, CA, May 2006.

6. Walsh, S. M.; Scott, B. R.; Spagnuolo, D. M. The Development of Hybridized 

Thermoplastic-Based Structural Materials with Applications to Ballistic Helmets. 

Proceeding of the International Ballistics Symposium, Vancouver B.C., November 2005.
17

NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION

1 ADMNSTR

ELEC DEFNS TECHL INFO CTR

ATTN DTIC OCP

8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD STE 0944

FT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218

1 CD OFC OF THE SECY OF DEFNS

ATTN ODDRE (R&AT) 

THE PENTAGON

WASHINGTON DC 20301-3080

1 US ARMY RSRCH DEV AND ENGRG 

CMND

ARMAMENT RSRCH DEV & ENGRG 

CTR 

ARMAMENT ENGRG & TECHNLGY 

CTR

ATTN AMSRD AAR AEF T 

J MATTS

BLDG 305

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 

21005-5001

1 PM TIMS, PROFILER (MMS-P) 

AN/TMQ-52

ATTN B GRIFFIES 

BUILDING 563

FT MONMOUTH NJ 07703

1 US ARMY INFO SYS ENGRG CMND

ATTN AMSEL IE TD A RIVERA

FT HUACHUCA AZ 85613-5300

1 COMMANDER

US ARMY RDECOM

ATTN AMSRD AMR 

W C MCCORKLE

5400 FOWLER RD

REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-5000

1 US GOVERNMENT PRINT OFF

DEPOSITORY RECEIVING SECTION

ATTN MAIL STOP IDAD J TATE

732 NORTH CAPITOL ST NW

WASHINGTON DC 20402

1 US ARMY RSRCH LAB

ATTN RDRL WMM D S WALSH

BLDG 4600 RM 2049

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 

21005-5069

NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION

2 US ARMY RSRCH LAB

ATTN RDRL WMM A J WOLBERT

ATTN RDRL WMM D 

L VARGAS-GONZALEZ

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 

21005

1 US ARMY RSRCH LAB

ATTN RDRL CIM G T LANDFRIED

BLDG 4600

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 

21005-5066

3 US ARMY RSRCH LAB

ATTN IMNE ALC HRR 

MAIL & RECORDS MGMT

ATTN RDRL CIM L TECHL LIB

ATTN RDRL CIM P TECHL PUB

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

TOTAL: 14 (1 ELEC, 1 CD, 12 HCS)
18

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.