Investigation of Basalt Woven Fabrics for Military 

Applications

by David M. Spagnuolo, Eugene Napadensky, Tomoko Sano, 

and James P. Wolbert

ARL-TR-5815 November 2011

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
NOTICES

Disclaimers

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless 

so designated by other authorized documents.

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

use thereof.

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator.
i

Army Research Laboratory

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069

ARL-TR-5815 November 2011

Investigation of Basalt Woven Fabrics for Military 

Applications

David M. Spagnuolo, Eugene Napadensky, Tomoko Sano, 

and James P. Wolbert

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL

Approved for public release; distribution is 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)

November 2011

2. REPORT TYPE

Final

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Investigation of Basalt Woven Fabrics for Military Applications

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

David M. Spagnuolo, Eugene Napadensky, Tomoko Sano, and James P. 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-A

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

ARL-TR-5815

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

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

This report investigates the use of basalt fibers in a composite along with SC-15 epoxy resin for ballistic protection. Basalt 

fibers are not known as a ballistic material but rather as a structural one. Even though basalt fibers are not expected to 

outperform some of the higher ballistic performing materials such as the aramid and polyethylene fibers; however, due to the 

lower manufacturing costs, basalt fibers are an interesting alternative. The objective of this project was to gain a basic 

understanding of the properties of basalt fibers and their potential use for certain military applications. Therefore, some of the 

basic mechanical tests were used as a tool to compare properties to an S-2 glass epoxy system. The same was true for the 

ballistic tests that were performed. The basic mechanical tests used for comparative studies were flexural, tensile, and shortbeam shear strength. The basalt epoxy composites compared well with S-2 properties. Fragment tests were also investigated 

for two areal densities, 1-psf and 5-psf systems, using a 17- and 44-gn fragment simulating projectile (FSP), respectively. 

Again, the basalt epoxy performed well for these tests as compared to an S-2 similar system.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Basalt, epoxy, S-2 glass, ballistic, V50

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

17. LIMITATION

 OF 

 ABSTRACT

UU

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

28

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

David M. Spagnuolo

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

410-306-0770

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. Test Methodology 2

2.1 Materials..........................................................................................................................2

2.2 Composite Fabrication ....................................................................................................3

2.3 Mechanical Testing .........................................................................................................5

2.4 Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy.....................................................................................6

2.5 Ballistic Testing...............................................................................................................6

3. Results 7

3.1 Mechanical Testing .........................................................................................................7

3.2 EDS Discussion.............................................................................................................12

3.3 Ballistic Testing.............................................................................................................13

4. Conclusions 14

5. References 16

Appendix. Average Values and Standard Deviations for All Mechanical Tests 17

List of Symbols, Abbreviations, and Acronyms 18

Distribution List 19
iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Basalt rock.......................................................................................................................1

Figure 2. Three weave styles investigated. .....................................................................................3

Figure 3. Typical VARTM process. ...............................................................................................4

Figure 4. Short-beam shear test experimental set-up......................................................................6

Figure 5. Typical flexural plot for basalt-epoxy composite............................................................8

Figure 6. Flexural modulus basalt vs. S-2 glass/epoxy...................................................................8

Figure 7. Flexural strength basalt vs. S-2 glass/epoxy....................................................................9

Figure 8. Short beam shear basalt vs. S-2 glass/epoxy. ................................................................10

Figure 9. Modulus of elasticity for basalt vs. S-2 glass/epoxy. ....................................................11

Figure 10. Ultimate tensile strength basalt vs. S-2 glass/epoxy. ..................................................12

Figure 11. V50 for 17-gn FSP.......................................................................................................13

Figure 12. V50 for 44-gn FSP.......................................................................................................14

List of Tables

Table 1. Product information. .........................................................................................................3

Table 2. Test methods and ply counts.............................................................................................5

Table 3. Mechanical test data normalized to S-2 glass/epoxy. .....................................................12

Table A-1. Average values and standard deviations for all mechanical tests................................17
v

Acknowledgments

Special thanks go out to a great group of technicians who did all the dirty work fabricating and 

machining the composite test coupons: Mike Neblett, Rob Miller, Matt Gilley, Fred Racine and 

Mike Thompson. Thanks to all the helping hands working out at the Survivability/Lethality 

Analysis Directorate (SLAD) Peep site, with a special thanks to Rob Kinsler and Rick Kane. We 

also thank John Brown, David Gray, and Paul Moy for all the mechanical testing portion of this 

work. For those who we may have missed, thank you so much for all your help in acquiring the 

info within.
vi

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
1

1. Introduction

Basalt rock (figure 1) is a black or gray, fine-grained rock classified in the family of igneous 

rocks, formed by cooling of molten lava. It is commonly found in the Earth’s crust, is abundant 

throughout the world, and can be easily mined. Basalt rock possesses certain qualities similar to 

thermoplastics and metals, i.e., it melts when heated to specific temperatures (1100–1300 °C) 

and can be drawn into flexible fibers, a process similar to manufacture of S-2 and E-glass fibers.

Figure 1. Basalt rock.

Extruding fibers from basalt is not a new idea, it was granted a U.S. patent in 1923 (USP no.

1,462,446). Researchers in the U.S. experimented with basalt fibers for military applications and 

several glass companies were awarded patents in that field. However, efforts were abandoned 

around 1970 as companies pursued other product developments, from which Owens Corning 

developed S-2 glass. The research efforts in this field, however, continued in Eastern Europe 

and the technology was developed to make basalt fibers (1).

Due to the fiber research, production, and marketing efforts of these countries once aligned with 

the Soviet bloc, these new basalt fibers are reappearing on researchers’ radar. Along with the 
2

obvious uses as toughening and insulation material, it is claimed that the fibers are naturally 

resistant to ultraviolet (UV) and high-energy electromagnetic radiation, maintain their properties 

in cold temperatures, and provide excellent acid resistance (2).

The fibers are produced in a continuous process, similar to that for making glass fibers. The 

basalt material is initially fed into a heating furnace, followed by gravity fed through a bushing,

and finally gathered into a single strand of continuous filament basalt fiber. The material is then 

quenched with a water-based sizing and packaged for sale (3). At this time, the industry is 

capable of producing large quantities of inexpensive basalt fiber with various well-defined and 

controlled fiber diameters.

There are certain things about basalt that make it attractive and economically comparable with 

production of glass fibers, like S-2. Part of the process in the production of high quality glass 

fibers involves addition of ingredients such as aluminum and other minerals needed to create the 

desired chemical and physical properties of the final product. Additional steps and ingredients 

will always increase production cost. Since natural basalt already contains these ingredients, 

these steps are eliminated from the manufacturing process. There are also reports that being a 

product of volcanic activity, the fiberization process is more environmentally safe than that of 

glass fiber. Basalt is, however, more abrasive than glass. So in order to reduce excessive wear 

and tear on the bushings during the fiber manufacturing process, they will need to be redesigned 

using a more durable material (1).

Since basalt fabrics are fairly new for Army applications and currently in limited use, selection 

of different types and weights of fabric were considered for this study. The main goal is to 

obtain different vendor products and perform the evaluation assuming that a lighter fabric or 

style may be better suited for smaller threats. This report discusses, in detail, the results of the 

evaluation of basalt woven rovings with SC-15 epoxy resin composite plates with regard to their 

mechanical and ballistic properties and how they compare to S-2 glass with SC-15 epoxy resin 

composite plates. While the basalt fiber itself was manufactured by the same company 

(Kamenny Vek), the weaving into fabric was done elsewhere and procured through four different 

vendors. This allows us to evaluate the effect different fabric manufacturing processes and styles 

has on the final properties of the composites as well as provides a general comparison of basalt 

fibers to S-2 glass for potential Army applications.

2. Test Methodology

2.1 Materials

The raw material was purchased from Martintek U.S.A. (Batesburg-Leesville, SC), Hexcel 

Corporation (Sequin, TX), BGF Industries Inc. (Greensboro, NC), and Sudaglass Fiber 

Technology Inc. (Houston, TX). All of these vendors use basalt filaments manufactured and 
3

supplied by Kamenny Vek. These fabrics were infused with SC-15 epoxy resin (Applied 

Poleramic Inc., Benica, CA) at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL). Composite plates 

were fabricated at two areal densities and the average fiber volume was 45%.

The materials obtained from each vendor are listed in table 1.

Table 1. Product information.

Vendor Product Nomen. Weight

(oz/yd2)

Weave Style Designation

Martintek B1600612 25 Plain MT

Hexcel XC2024 8.7 8 harness satin XC

BGF BS240 24 5 × 5 plain BS

Sudaglass BT11 26 2/2 twill SD

Figure 2 shows the three different weave styles—the 8-harness satin weave, a plain weave, and a 

2/2 twill weave—looking from left to right. Basalt fabrics tend to be brownish in color due to 

the high iron content.

Figure 2. Three weave styles investigated.

2.2 Composite Fabrication

One of the claims of basalt is how easily the fabric wets out, which enables fast impregnation, 

making it well suited for processes such as resin transfer molding (RTM), infusion, molding, and 

pultrusion (1).

The resin infusion process was done with SC-15 epoxy resin, a two-phase cycloaliphatic amine 

resin. This particular resin system is widely used for ballistic plates by the U.S. Army, BAE 
4

Systems, the University of Delaware, and several phase II Small Business Innovation Research 

(SBIR) contracts.

Typical vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM) involves layering up plies of 

unimpregnated fabric cut to size or preformed and vacuum bagged it with the appropriate 

number of resin feed and vent lines. The pressure differential, along with the evacuated plies, 

stimulates resin impregnation of the preform (4, 5).

For the manufacturing of the plates for these evaluations, the dry fabric layers were layed up 

square on a flat glass table (acting as the mold) with the bottom ply of the fabric purposely 

oversized to assist with proper wet-out. A release agent was applied to the table prior to lay-up 

to prevent bonding to the glass mold. A release cloth was placed on the plies. The reddish fabric 

shown in figure 3 is a distribution media, a highly permeable material that allows the resin to 

rapidly proceed across the surface length and then slowly infuse through the thickness. A 

vacuum bagging material is placed over the setup and held in place with tacky tape (AdvancedWest Composite Solutions). Resin feed lines run down the center of the plates and the vacuum 

lines run parallel to the feed lines to pull the resin across the fabric. 

Figure 3. Typical VARTM process.

Plates for mechanical testing were fabricated to be 25 × 25 in with a 0.2-in thickness and had an 

average of 45% fiber and 55% SC-15 resin by volume. The number of plies required to achieve 

this thickness had to be varied from 8 to 19 plies due to different thicknesses of the fabrics. 

Plates were cut into individual coupon samples using a FLOW International Corporation 

(FLOW) waterjet system (4 × 4 Integrated Flying Bridge) to the appropriate sizes shown in 

table 2.
5

Table 2. Test methods and ply counts.

Test Method Reinforcement Matrix Plies Dimensions

(mm/in)

ASTM D790

Hexcel SC-15 19 203 × 25 × 5 (8 × 1 × 0.2)

BGF SC-15 8

Martintek SC-15 9

Sudaglass SC-15 9

ASTM D2344

Hexcel SC-15 19 38 × 13 × 5 (1.5 × 0.5 × 0.2)

BGF SC-15 8

Martintek SC-15 9

Sudaglass SC-15 9

ASTM D638

Hexcel SC-15 19 165 × 13 × 5 (6.5 × 0.5 × 0.2)

BGF SC-15 8

Martintek SC-15 9

Sudaglass SC-15 9

Plates for ballistic testing were fabricated separately due to different requirements. Using the 

VARTM process described earlier, plates with two different areal densities (1- and 5-psf) were 

fabricated to evaluate 0.22-cal. (17-gn) and 0.30-cal. (44-gn) tests. 

2.3 Mechanical Testing

Flexural properties were obtained using the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

D790 Method, Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced 

Plastics for Insulating Materials (6). This method also includes high-modulus composite testing. 

One side of the beam is loaded in compression while the supported side is in tension. A shear 

stress also exists at the neutral axis, but this component is usually minimized by making the test 

specimen long relative to the thickness (7). Five samples, in the form of rectangular bars, were 

cut to the following dimensions, 8 × 10 × 0.2 in, for each material group. A span-to-depth ratio 

of 40:1 was used. The samples were conditioned for a minimum of 48 h at 23 ± 2 °C and 50% ±

5% relative humidity. Tests were performed on an Instron 5500 series load frame, Model 1125,

to measure properties such as flexural strength and flexural modulus. Both are indicators of how 

a material will behave under bending conditions

Short-beam shear strength was determined by using ASTM D2344, Standard Test Method for 

Short-Beam Strength of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials and Their Laminates (8). This 

method determines the short-beam strength of high-modulus fiber-reinforced composite 

materials by testing a short beam machined from a curved or flat laminate in 3-point bending. 

Beams were machined to 1.5 × 0.5 × 0.2 in from flat plates and five tests were run for each of the 

basalt materials. The samples were conditioned for a minimum of 48 h at 23 ± 2 °C and 

50% ± 5% relative humidity. The Instron 5500 load frame, model 1125, was used for the shortbeam shear testing as well. Figure 4 shows the short-beam shear test fixture in the Instron load 

frame.
6

Figure 4. Short-beam shear test experimental set-up.

To determine the fiber strength of reinforced composites, tensile testing was performed in 

accordance with ASTM D638, Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics (9). 

Samples were cut on the FLOW waterjet according to Type I in the standard, 6.5 × 0.5 × 0.25 in. 

Again, all samples were conditioned for a minimum of 48 h at 23°C ± 2°C and 50% ± 5%

relative humidity. Tensile strength and tensile modulus were obtained from these mechanical 

tests.

2.4 Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy

The elemental compositions of each fiber were also investigated to study the manufacturer’s 

material variance in surface treatments by energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). While the bulk 

of the fiber comes from one source (Kamenny Vek), different surface treatments employed 

during fabric production may have an effect on the fiber-resin interaction, such as wetting, 

adhesion, and fiber pull-out, which can result in differences in the performance of the final 

product. Analysis was performed on an EDAX Pegasus XM4 EDS system, which is installed on 

an FEI Nova NanoSEM 600 scanning electron microscope. The EDAX ZAF quantification 

method was used to perform the elemental microanalysis. ZAF is a method that compares the 

peak intensities to the intensities of the pure elements to calculate the k-ratio; and corrections are 

made for atomic number (Z), absorption (A) and fluorescence (F) (www.bowdoin.edu, EDAX 

Phoenix Training Course).

2.5 Ballistic Testing

Ballistic tests were performed at the Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate’s (SLAD) range 

at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. To understand how basalt-epoxy composites perform for 
7

possible use as body protection and/or vehicle applications, two areal densities were chosen, 

1- and 5-psf. To obtain V50 values (velocity at which the probability of penetration of an armor 

material is 50%) (10), a 17-gn fragment simulating projectile (FSP) was used on the low areal 

density plates (1-psf). To represent some of the larger fragment threats, a 44-gn FSP (0.30 cal.) 

was used to obtain V50’s against 5-psf plates.

3. Results

3.1 Mechanical Testing

The following nomenclature is used for each vendor’s material: Hexcel (XC), Martintek (MT), 

Sudaglass (SD), BGF (BS), and S2-glass (S-2). The average values and standard deviations for 

all mechanical tests are shown in the appendix.

Experimental data were obtained using the Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of 

Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics for Insulating Materials (ASTM D790). The modulus of 

elasticity (EB) is the ratio of the elastic limit, stress, to a corresponding strain. It was determined 

by drawing a tangent to the steepest initial straight-line portion of the load deflection curve and 

using the following equation:

EB = L3m/4bd3(1)

where

EB = modulus of elasticity in bending,

L = support span,

b = width of the beam, 

d = depth (thickness) of the beam, and 

m = slope of the linear portion of the load versus displacement graph.

The average values are displayed for each material. Figure 5 shows a typical load-displacement 

curve displaying the tangent line through the linear portion of the graph.
8

Figure 5. Typical flexural plot for basalt-epoxy composite.

The flexural modulus is used for selection of materials for parts that will support loads without 

flexing. As can be seen from figure 6, the XC and MT basalt have the same modulus while the 

SD and BS basalts are also about the same, with average values 10% below the XC and MT 

basalts. All are at least 7% below the flex modulus of S2-glass, with the poorest performer (BS) 

being 17% less than S-2 glass/epoxy. Therefore, for applications where minimum bending is 

required, certain basalt fabrics could serve reasonably well as a substitute for S2-glass.

Figure 6. Flexural modulus basalt vs. S-2 glass/epoxy.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Disp (in.)

Load (lbs)

Tangent line

Flexural Modulus

0

5

10

15

20

25

XC MT SD BS S-2

Material GPa
9

The flexural strength is a measure of how well the material will stay intact while bending. The 

maximum flexural stress sustained during the bend test is calculated by using the following 

equation:

σf = 3PL/2bd2(2)

where

σf = stress in the outer fibers at midpoint,

P = load at a given point on the load-deflection curve,

L = support span,

b = width of beam tested, and

d = depth of beam tested.

Similar to the flexural modulus results, the S2-glass outperformed the basalt in flexural strength, 

as shown in figure 7. Three out of the four material strengths were at least 17% less than the 

S2-glass epoxy composite’s flexural strength with the XC material being just about equal to the 

S-2 glass/epoxy composite.

Figure 7. Flexural strength basalt vs. S-2 glass/epoxy.

The short-beam shear test measures the shear properties of the individual layers (plies) 

attempting to slide past each other. This method does produce reasonable values of shear 

strength, as well as being a very attractive materials screening test (11). The short-beam shear 

strength was calculated using the following equation:

F

sbs = 0.75 × Pm/b × d (3)

Flexural Strength

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

XC MT S D B S S-2

Material MPa
10

where

F

sbs = short-beam strength,

Pm = maximum load observed during the test,

b = width of beam tested, and

d = depth of beam tested.

The shear results are quite comparable to that of S-2 glass/epoxy, and the BS material had the 

lowest strength but still within 12% of the S-2 glass/epoxy composite (figure 8). 

Figure 8. Short beam shear basalt vs. S-2 glass/epoxy.

The tensile test results were captured using digital image correlation (DIC). This non-contact, 

optical method is used to measure surface strains on an object. Digital cameras capture the 

grayscale, speckled images of the sample being tested and they are post-processed with specially 

designed software to convert pixel patterns into displacement/strains (12).

The results of the tensile test shown in figure 9 are quite interesting. They show the modulus of 

elasticity for three of the four basalt materials exceeding that of the S-2 glass/epoxy composite 

by 5%. The SD material performed the lowest, 5% less than the S-2 glass/epoxy composite and 

10% below the other basalts. The modulus of elasticity is the stiffness of the material and it is 

defined as the ratio of the uniaxial stress over the uniaxial strain, as denoted in the following 

equation:

E = σ/ε = (F)(Lo)/(Ao)(ΔL) (4)

Short Beam Shear Strength

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

XC MT S D B S S-2

Material MPa
11

where

E = modulus,

F = force,

Lo = original length of object tested,

ΔL = change in length of object tested, and

Ao = original cross-sectional area to which the force is applied.

Figure 9. Modulus of elasticity for basalt vs. S-2 glass/epoxy.

The tensile strength is the maximum stress that a material can withstand while being stretched 

before breaking and is calculated by dividing the maximum load by the cross-sectional area of 

the specimen. The tensile strength of all specimens tested follow the same trend as shown in the 

previous properties (flexural modulus and strength), with S-2 glass/epoxy outperforming the 

basalts by 10 to 30%, depending on the material (figure 10). 

Table 3 shows mechanical properties normalized to S-2 glass/epoxy results. The green 

highlighted cells show that the basalt outperformed the S-2 glass/epoxy. 

Modulus of Elasticity

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

XC MT S D B S S-2

Material GPa
12

Figure 10. Ultimate tensile strength basalt vs. S-2 glass/epoxy.

Table 3. Mechanical test data normalized to S-2 glass/epoxy.

Mechanical Testing (SC-15 Epoxy Resin Matrix)

Flex Str.

(%)

Flex Mod.

(%)

SBS Str.

(%)

Ten Str.

(%)

Mod. Elast.

(%)

S-2 100 100 100 100 100

XC 99 90 104 89 105

MT 83 93 98 86 105

SD 69 83 91 80 95

BS 81 83 88 70 106

3.2 EDS Discussion

Interestingly, different results were obtained for each of the compositions, which were all 

Kamenny Vek origin according to the vendors. The materials supplied by SD and MT were 

almost identical in composition. Each had approximately 47% silicon dioxide (SiO2), and the 

remaining compounds, calcium oxide (CaO), titanium dioxide (TiO2), iron oxide (Fe2O3), 

magnesium oxide (MgO), sodium oxide (NaO), and potassium oxide (K2O), were about equal. 

However, the BS material had a higher SiO2 level of about 56% and we did not detect any traces 

of Fe2O3 or TiO2 in the material. The XC material had a significantly lower SiO2 (22%) content 

but the Fe2O3 and FeO amounts were three times higher than the other basalts, and no TiO2 was 

detected in this material as well. These differences may be due to additives used during a 

particular process as the fibers were weaved into fabrics. Another possibility is the particular 

Ultimate Tensile Strength

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

XC MT SD BS S-2

Material MPa
13

origin or grade of the mined raw material (basalt). Causes responsible for these differences in 

chemical composition are being investigated.

3.3 Ballistic Testing

Figure 11 displays the 1-psf ballistic data for the four basalt-epoxy materials normalized to the 

S-2 glass epoxy results tested against the 17-gn FSP. The basalt composites performed just as 

well as the S-2 system. The SD and MT were equivalent to S-2, with the BS material only 6% 

lower. The XC material performed the worst, but that was a lightweight fabric with a tight 

8-harness satin weave. The tight weave of this fabric may have been more difficult to wet-out 

with resin during the impregnation process causing the lower V50 results. E-glass results for 

17-gn testing were added to see how the basalt compares with it.

Figure 11. V50 for 17-gn FSP.

Ballistic tests were performed on 5-psf areal density panels for the same materials, but against 

the 44-gn FSP. The V50 results are shown in figure 12 normalized to an S-2 glass system. The 

basalt composite plates compare very well to the S-2 glass/epoxy composite plates for the 44-gn 

FSP threat. Three out of the four basalt composites had the same or better V50 as that of S-2, 

with the BS basalt composite outperforming S-2 by 9%. The XC basalt performed the worst of 

the group, as was the case with the 17-gn FSP testing on the 1-psf plates. As mentioned before, 

this is most likely due to the lightweight, tight weave of the XC fabric. Still, the performance of 

the XC composite was within 10% of the V50 of the other materials.

V50 Normalized Data for 1 psf (17-gn fsp)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

XC SC15 MT SC15 SD SC15 BS SC15 S2 SC15 E-glass SC15

Material
14

Figure 12. V50 for 44-gn FSP.

The trends in ballistic performance data for 44-gn FSP seem to inversely follow the results 

obtained from the short-beam shear and ultimate tensile strength tests; the lower the mechanical 

test values, the better was the level of protection. This pattern, however, was not observed in the 

lower caliber (17-gn) ballistic tests. 

4. Conclusions

This investigation showed the potential for basalt fibers to be used as a reasonable replacement 

for structural and ballistic applications currently fielding S-2 glass/epoxy using the same SC-15 

epoxy resin system. For most mechanical tests, there was at least one basalt candidate that 

performed within 10% of S-2 glass/epoxy. In some cases, the basalt showed higher properties. 

The modulus of elasticity for all the basalt candidates was comparable to S-2 glass/epoxy, and 

three out of the four exhibited a higher modulus than S-2 glass/epoxy. Tensile strength was the 

only property in which all the basalt candidates were lower than 10% compared to S-2 

glass/epoxy.

Ballistically, basalt fibers performed just as well as S-2 glass/epoxy for the 17-gn FSP tests. The 

basalt composite V50 results were practically identical to the S-2 composite, with the exception 

of the XC, which was 20% lower than S-2. As for the 44-gn FSP tests, the basalt V50 results 

were higher than the S-2 glass/epoxy. The BS basalt composite was the best performer, which 

was 9% higher than S-2. The MT and SD composites also had a V50 higher than S-2 × 1 and 

2%, respectively. Again, the XC was the worst performer in the group, but was only 5% below 

V50 Normalized Data for 5 psf (44-gn fsp)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

XC SC15 MT SC15 SD SC15 BS SC15 S2-SC15

Material
15

the V50 performance of S-2 glass/epoxy. This indicates that basalt fibers may be considered as a 

replacement candidate for S-2 glass/epoxy composites in some ballistic applications.

In addition to ballistic protection, basalt also has comparable mechanical properties and 

flammability resistance properties. These properties show that basalt could be suitable for 

structural applications such as backing plates for vehicle armor systems.

Comparison of various mechanical tests to the resulting ballistic properties indicate that the 

differences in modulus of elasticity does not provide any significant insight on final ballistic 

properties; two materials with vastly different results performed practically identically against a 

17-gn ballistic threat. Short-beam shear and ultimate tensile strength tests, on the other hand, 

showed a small inverse relationship to protection against higher caliber threats; the lower the test 

values, the better the level of protection. This pattern, however, was not observed in the lower 

caliber (17-gn) ballistic tests.

Further studies with basalt fabrics should be performed with a quasi-isotropic design in an effort 

to improve the mechanical and ballistic performance. Verification of basalt as a backing plate 

should be investigated with a more substantial caliber threat. Also more research needs to be 

done in the area of chemical composition of the fiber; this study was more of a surface analysis 

rather than an analysis of the bulk fiber itself.
16

5. References

1. Basalt Fibers: Alternative to Glass? Composites Technology August 2006.

2. Nolf, J.-M. Basalt Fibres Fire Blocking Textiles, Basaltex R&D Department, Masureel 

Group, Wevelgem, Belgium, TUT N 49–3rd Quarter 2003.

3. Swink, M. Continuous Filament Basalt A Unique Fiber Capable of Leadership in High 

Temperature Applications. Techtextil North America Symposium, Atlanta, GA, April 2002.

4. Seemann, W. H. Plastic Transfer Molding Techniques for the Production of Fiber 

Reinforced Plastic Structures. U.S. Patent 4,902,215, 1990.

5. Rigas, E. J.; Mulkern, T. J.; Walsh, S. M.; Nguyen, S. P. Effects of Processing Conditions 

on Vacuum Assisted Resin Transfer Molding Process (VARTM); ARL-TR-2480; Weapons 

and Materials Research Directorate, U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, MD, 2001.

6. ASTM D 790-03. Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and 

Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials. Annu. Book ASTM Stand. 

7. Adams, D. F. Test Methods for Composite Materials – Seminar Notes, December 1988.

8. ASTM D 2344-00. Standard Test Method for Short-Beam Strength of Polymer Matrix 

Composite Materials and Their Laminates. Annu. Book ASTM Stand.

9. ASTM D 638-03. Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics. Annu. Book 

ASTM Stand. 

10. MIL-STD-662F. Department of Defense Test Method Standard V50 Ballistic Test for Armor

18 December 1997.

11. Adams, D., Dr. The Short Beam Shear Test. High-Performance Composites, July 2006.

12. Moy, P.; Whittie, S. D.; Foster, M.; Quabili, A. Experimental Technique Using a Modified 

V-Notched Rail Shear Fixture on Woven S2-Glass; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: 

SAMPE, May 2010.
17

Appendix. Average Values and Standard Deviations for All Mechanical Tests

Table A-1 shows the average values and standard deviations for all mechanical tests for the five 

composites tested: XC, MT, SD, BS and S-2.

Table A-1. Average values and standard deviations for all mechanical tests.

Composite Flex Modulus

(Gpa)

Flex Strength

(Mpa)

SB Strength

(Mpa)

Modulus of 

Elasticity

(Gpa)

Ult Tensile 

Strength

(Mpa)

XC SC-15 20.0 ± 0.3 459.2 ± 9.6 46.0 ± 0.3 24.1 ± 1.1 471.0 ± 10

MT SC 15 20.7 ± 0.7 382.3 ± 40.5 43.2 ± 1.4 24.2 ± 1.1 456.0 ± 13

SD SC 15 18.4 ± 0.3 319.3 ± 18.5 40.1 ± 0.5 21.8 ± 1.8 425.0 ± 26

BS SC 15 18.5 ± 0.4 375.0 ± 11.0 38.9 ± 2.8 24.4 ± 0.6 372.0 ± 10

S-2 SC 15 22.2 ± 0.2 462.5 ± 20.1 44.3 ± 1.2 23.0 ± 3.4 529.7 ± 21.1
18

List of Symbols, Abbreviations, and Acronyms

ARL U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

BS BGF 

CaO calcium oxide 

DIC digital image correlation 

EDS energy dispersive spectroscopy 

Fe2O3 iron oxide 

FLOW FLOW International Corporation 

FSP fragment simulating projectile 

K2O potassium oxide 

MgO magnesium oxide 

MT Martintek 

NaO sodium oxide 

RTM resin transfer molding 

S-2 S2-glass 

SBIR Small Business Innovation Research 

SD Sudaglass 

SiO2 silicon dioxide 

SLAD Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate

TiO2 titanium dioxide 

UV ultraviolet

VARTM vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding 

XC Hexcel 
NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION

19

1 ADMNSTR

ELEC DEFNS TECHL INFO CTR

ATTN DTIC OCP (ELECTRONIC COPY)

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 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

4 US ARMY RSRCH LAB

ATTN RDRL WMM A J WOLBERT

ATTN RDRL WMM B T SANO

ATTN RDRL WMM D D SPAGNUOLO

ATTN RDRL WMM G E NAPADENSKY

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 21005

4 US ARMY RSRCH LAB

ATTN RDRL D OFFICE OF DIRECTOR

ATTN IMNE ALC HRR MAIL & RECORDS MGMT

ATTN RDRL CIO LL TECHL LIB 

ATTN RDRL CIO MT TECHL PUB

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197
20

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.