Materials-related issues are rarely mentioned in the mainstream

news, but with the recent controversy surrounding bullet-proof

vests there has been significant interest from the media. Bulletproof vests are quite literally a vital component of the uniform

for many of the men and women serving our country, either in

law enforcement or in the military, and have been directly

attributed with saving thousands of lives.

The issue that has caught the attention

of the media is that certain types of vests

might fail when they are needed to protect, and law enforcement officers may

unknowingly be at risk. The vests in question are made of a Zylon®-based fabric, which has been shown

to degrade under high temperature and high humidity conditions, and are currently being used by many law enforcement

agencies. The manufacturer of the fiber and the maker of the

bullet-proof vests have been involved in a small media war over

who’s at fault for the potentially unreliable vests.

In response to concerns over bullet-proof vests made from

Zylon, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), which is the

research, development and evaluation agency of the

Department of Justice, has led an effort to evaluate the reliability of this fiber and the vests made from it. The NIJ has released

an interim status report updating the progress of the evaluation

and a supplemental report detailing the possible causes of body

armor failure in an incident where a Pennsylvania police officer

was shot and seriously injured. The supplemental report offers

several theories but did not reach any specific conclusions on

why the bullet completely penetrated the officer’s vest.

However, this report and the interim status report also suggest

that Zylon is vulnerable to degradation and must be protected

from its susceptibilities to provide long-term durability.

Meanwhile, the US Military has been pursuing development of

the Zylon fiber and its application to body armor, because it

can potentially reduce the weight of current body armor by

25%. The study by the NIJ, therefore, is very important in

light of the recent controversy and interest from the military.

The military has been supplying its troops with upgraded

body armor vests to replace the old Personnel Armor System

for Ground Troops (PASGT) vests, but there has been some

concern over the reliability of a group of these new vests as

well. The new Interceptor® vests, which are made from an

improved Kevlar® fiber, feature superior ballistic performance and are substantially lighter compared to the old

PASGT body armor. Though there have been claims that the

new vests failed to meet the standard

requirements, they still are the best available lightweight armor for ground troops

and offer better protection than the old

vests. The new bullet-proof vests are being

worn by soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan,

and together with their composite helmets have been credited with saving many soldiers’ lives.

While the media certainly benefits from reporting on these

sorts of controversies, it also creates some awareness for 

materials-related issues and promotes the need for further

development and advancement of materials to a broader 

audience. Reliability of body armor is an extremely important

issue, as our military and law enforcement organizations have

become dependent on these vests for protecting their most

important assets. Further critical evaluation of existing lightweight armor technologies and the development of new 

materials for armor applications can only lead to better,

lighter armor, which will help improve our soldiers’ ability to

maneuver and survive, and ultimately will keep our military

the best equipped in the world.

This issue of the AMPTIAC Quarterly features an article on

high performance fibers for flexible and rigid lightweight

armor applications. Because of the vital importance of body

armor and bullet-proof vests and the recent media attention

surrounding them, we wanted to publish an article that focuses on the fundamental materials that enable these armors. The

article highlights current fiber technologies as well as fibers 

for future systems, and provides a closer look at what is protecting the officers and soldiers who are on the battlefield 

protecting our way of life.

Ben Craig

Editor-In-Chief, AMPTIAC

Editorial: 

Protecting Those 

Who Protect Us

The AMPTIAC Quarterly is published by the Advanced Materials and Processes Technology Information Analysis

Center (AMPTIAC). AMPTIAC is a DOD-sponsored Information Analysis Center, administratively managed by

the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). Policy oversight is provided by the Office of the Secretary of

Defense, Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E). The AMPTIAC Quarterly is distributed to

more than 15,000 materials professionals around the world.

Inquiries about AMPTIAC capabilities, products, and services may be addressed to 

David H. Rose

Director, AMPTIAC

315-339-7023

EMAIL : amptiac@alionscience.com

URL : http ://amptiac.alionscience.com

We welcome your input! To submit your related articles, photos, notices, or ideas for future issues, please contact:

AMPTIAC

ATTN: BENJAMIN D. CRAIG

201 Mill Street

Rome, New York 13440

PHONE: 315.339.7019

FAX: 315.339.7107

EMAIL : amptiac_news@alionscience.com

Editor-in-Chief

Benjamin D. Craig

Publication Design 

Cynthia Long

Tamara R. Grossman

Information Processing

Judy E. Tallarino

Patricia Bissonette

Inquiry Services

David J. Brumbaugh

Product Sales

Gina Nash
http://iac.dtic.mil/amptiac The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2 3

Richard A. Lane

AMPTIAC

Rome, NY

INTRODUCTION

Military systems, especially those supporting ground forces, are

being transformed to become faster, more agile, and more

mobile, as the US faces opponents who use guerilla-warfare tactics and where systems must be quickly moved to operations

located throughout the world. As a result, an increased demand

for improved lightweight body armor and lightweight vehicle

armor has led to the development of new armor materials.

High performance fiber materials have been exploited for both

applications. For example, they can be used as soft, flexible

fiber mats for body armor or as reinforcements in rigid polymer

matrix composites (PMCs) for lightweight vehicle armor.

Throughout history, lightweight and flexible materials have

been sought to reduce the weight of body armor systems to

enhance mobility, while providing protection against specified

threats. Early materials included leather and even silk, which

were used in conjunction with metal plates to provide the

needed protection. The elimination of metals altogether in

body armor systems however, did not take place until the

Korean War.[1] At that time, a nylon fabric vest and an E-glass

fiber/ethyl cellulose composite vest, which had been developed

during the course of World War II, were put into service.

These vests provided protection against bomb and grenade

fragments, which accounted for the high majority of injuries

and deaths among soldiers. Although nylon and E-glass fibers

continue to find some use today due to their low cost, high

performance fibers are now the standard for most fiberreinforced armor applications. High performance fibers are

typically used in the form of woven fabrics for vests and 

either woven or non-woven reinforcements within PMCs 

for helmets. Figure 1 shows the Interceptor®* vest and composite helmet currently worn by US military troops. Ceramic

insert plates may be used to increase the performance of the

Interceptor vests to

defeat up to 0.30

caliber threats.[3]

Rotary-wing aircraft were used extensively during the

Vietnam conflict,

and the need for

weight reduction

fueled the development of lightweight

armor for vehicles and aircraft. Since metals were prohibitively

heavy for use as armor on aircraft, PMC armor materials were

considered. Ceramic faceplates were used with PMCs in aircraft

due to the added threat of large-caliber, armor-piercing ammunition. These armor systems were used to protect cockpits in

numerous aircraft, as well as cargo areas in transport planes and

helicopters. PMC armor technology has since been transferred

to ground vehicles, such as the High Mobility Multipurpose

Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), which is shown in Figure 2.

ENERGY ABSORPTION MECHANISMS

Woven fiber mats and fiber-reinforced PMCs mitigate projectile energy in different ways. The amount of energy absorbed

by fibers is largely dependent upon their strain to failure, as

depicted in Figure 3a.[4] A fiber mat with high strength and

high elongation to failure is thus expected to absorb energy via

plastic deformation and drawing (stretching) of the fibers.

Additionally, the strain in a fiber is equated to the impact

velocity divided by the sonic velocity of the fiber (Equation

1).[5] 

Equation 1

where,

ε – strain

V – impact velocity

c – sonic velocity of the fiber

V

ε = –––c

Figure 1. Interceptor Vest and Composite

Helmet[2].

Figure 2. Armored HMMWV Deployed in Iraq[2].
4 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2

The sonic velocity, in turn, is related to the fiber’s elastic 

modulus, as shown in Equation 2. A higher elastic modulus

results in the impact energy wave traveling farther down the

length of the fiber due to a greater sonic velocity, and thus a

greater volume of fiber absorbs the projectile energy. 

Equation 2

where,

E – elastic modulus

ρ – density of the fiber

A woven fiber mat is effective at absorbing the impact load by

dispersing the energy across a network of fibers, as depicted in

Figure 3b.

Once fibers are impregnated with a resin matrix their ability

to deform may be hindered, and as a consequence they may

absorb less energy. In fiber-reinforced PMCs, the fracture

process is considered to happen in two phases. High velocity

impact will cause localized compression of the composite, and

subsequently shearing of fibers and spalling of resin, as depicted in Figure 4a. Once the projectile has slowed, the composite

deforms causing fiber stretching, pullout, and delamination of

composite layers (plies), as shown in Figure 4b. Stitching composite plies together or three dimensional fiber weaving may be

used to reduce delamination and confine damage to a small

area.[6] However, this may also result in an increase in fiber

damage leading to a decrease in compressive strength after ballistic impact, and thus lower load carrying ability.

HIGH PERFORMANCE FIBERS

High performance fiber materials used in body and/or vehicle

armors include S-glass, aramid, high molecular weight polyethylene and polybenzobisoxazole. A new fiber material, polypyridobisimidazole, shows promising results but has not yet been

fully tested and validated for armor applications. Continuous

fibers are characterized by “denier”, which is a measure of the

weight, in grams, per 9000 meters (29,530 ft.) of fiber. Thus,

when comparing fibers that have the same density, a smaller

denier equates to a thinner fiber.

Fibers can be woven together into a number of configurations, some of which are illustrated in Figure 5, to provide 

varying degrees of performance and flexibility. Fiber structures

for armor applications have traditionally been in unidirectional, plain, or basket weave configurations. Unidirectional fiber

layers may be rotated 90° with respect to adjacent layers to 

create a cross-ply fabric. Additional woven structures have been

studied for armor applications, such as 3D structures to

enhance the multi-hit capability of composites.

E c = –– √ ρ

Figure 3. Fiber Energy Absorption Mechanisms[4].

Figure 4. Fiber-Reinforced PMC Energy Absorption

Mechanisms[4].

Figure 5. Woven Fiber Structures[7].

(a)

(a) Plain Weave (b) Basket Weave (c) Triaxial Weave (e) 3D Orthoganal Weave (f) 3D Triaxial Weave (d) 3D Braid

(b)

T = fiber tensile load

F = force resisting projectile

F = 2Tsinθ

(a) Single fiber (b) Woven fiber

Spalled resin Sheared fibers Drawn fibers Delaminated composite

Transmitted wave

Reflected wave

Impact energy

wave

T T

F/2

F

F/2 θ θ
S-Glass

S-glass, composed of silica (SiO2), alumina (Al2O3), and 

magnesia (MgO), is characterized by a strength that is roughly 35 to 40% higher than that of E-glass.[8] S-2 Glass is a 

coated fiber, which has become the preferred fiber in many

applications including armors. Its cost is significantly higher

than E-glass, but its strength advantage, and consequently 

performance per unit weight advantage, usually warrants its

selection for penetration resistance applications over E-glass.

Relative to aramid fibers, S-2 Glass fibers generally have comparable ballistic performance, as measured by the V50 Probable

Ballistic Limit Test (see sidebar), at a lower cost but higher

weight. S-2 Glass has good fatigue and moisture resistance and

a low creep rate, but can be susceptible to creep rupture. It can

be used at elevated temperatures up to approximately

1380°F.[9]

Aramid

Aramid fibers were developed during the 1960s and first introduced commercially by DuPont in the 1970s under the trade

name Kevlar®†. There are foreign companies that also produce

commercially available aramid

fibers, having the trade names

Twaron®‡ and Technora®§. The

primary structure of aramid

fibers is shown in Figure 6.

Modifiers to the primary chain

have been added over the years

for property enhancements,

resulting in the various aramid

fibers available today. Kevlar

29, Kevlar 49, Kevlar 129, and

Kelvar KM2 are the DuPont

aramid fibers that have been

used most in armor applications. The Personnel Armor

System for Ground Troops

(PASGT) bullet-proof vests

previously worn by military

personnel were made from

Kelvar 29. The Interceptor

vests, which are currently being

worn by soldiers in Iraq and

Afghanistan, are made from

Kelvar KM2 fiber.

Aramid fibers exhibit a

decrease in tensile strength

when exposed to heat or moisture. At temperatures up to

355°F, a strength loss of ≤ 20% occurs.[10] Strength losses of

≤ 5% at high humidity and room temperature and ≤ 10%

under hot water conditions have been observed; however, the

strength degradation appears to be reversible. The operating

temperature range is -420 to 320°F, with an onset of thermal

degradation occurring at about 840°F.[11,12] Aramid fibers

are vulnerable to damage from ultraviolet light, with a 49%

loss in strength measured after exposure to a Florida environment for 5 weeks.[11] Strong acid and alkaline environments

will also attack aramid fibers. The fibers have good fatigue

resistance, low creep rates, and are less susceptible to creep

rupture than S-2 Glass fibers. Aramid fibers do not naturally

bond well to resins, so they are usually chemically coated

(sized) prior to their incorporation in composites.

High Molecular Weight Polyethylene

High molecular weight polyethylene (HMWPE) has a simple

structure consisting of a repeating ethylene unit [CH2-CH2]

n.

Two commercially produced HMWPE fibers are Spectra®|| and

Dyneema®#. HMWPE fibers have the lowest density of all

fibers currently used for armor applications, with a V50 that is

higher than both S-2 Glass and aramid fibers per equivalent

weight. Their limitations include a lower operating temperature range, creep susceptibility and poor compressive strength.

HMWPE fibers have a maximum processing temperature of

250°F, limiting the choice of matrix materials to low temperature curing thermosets or selected thermoplastic resins.[13]

Polybenzobisoxazole

Polybenzobisoxazole (PBO) fibers are a result of the US Air

Force’s research during the 1980s that looked into developing

a stronger fiber than aramids.

[12] The repeat unit of PBO,

a rigid-rod structure, is shown

in Figure 7. PBO fibers have

very high tensile strength

properties, achieving better

penetration resistance than

the HMWPE fibers, but suffer from low compressive

strength like HMWPE. The

decomposition temperature 

of PBO fibers is about

1025°F, compared to 840°F

for aramid fibers.[12]

A commercial PBO fiber 

is currently on the market

under the trade name

Zylon®**. Zylon has been

shown to undergo tensile

strength degradation in elevated temperatures and moisture,

and when exposed to ultraviolet and visible light.[14] A

40% loss in strength can occur

at a temperature of 176°F and

80% relative humidity. The

strength loss after 6 months exposure to daylight is roughly

65%. One theory for the strength loss incurred involves the

method in which PBO fibers are being fabricated.[15] The

fibers are spun from a solution containing polyphosphoric acid.

Although the fibers are washed, dried, and heat treated, some

trace amounts of acid may remain on the fibers. The residual

acid combined with humid environments, sunlight or oxygen

can cause significant degradion of the fiber strength. Further

investigations into the strength loss of PBO fibers are being

conducted by the National Institute of Standards and

Technology, as directed by the National Institute of Justice.[16]

Figure 6. Aramid Chemical Structure.

Figure 7. PBO Chemical Structure.

http://iac.dtic.mil/amptiac The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2 5

O O

N

NH

N NH N

N

O

OH

OH

N N

O

H H

C C N

C C

C C

C C

C

C C

C

C C

C C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C C

C C

C

C C

C

C

C

C C

C

C C

Figure 8. M5 Chemical Structure.

n

n

n
6 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2

Polypyridobisimidazole

A new high performance fiber – polypyridobisimidazole

(PIPD), denoted M5®†† – has been developed at Akzo Nobel

and shows promising results. Similar to PBO, it is a rigid-rod

structure as shown in Figure 8. Due to strong intermolecular

hydrogen bonding, however, its compressive strength is significantly improved over that of PBO fibers. Its decomposition

temperature is about 985°F, which is close to that of PBO

fibers.[12] The fabrication technologies for M5 fibers are still

in developmental phases, as some properties of the fibers fall

short of their theoretical potential.

Comparison of High Performance Fibers

As discussed in the section on energy absorption mechanisms,

the major properties used to assess probable ballistic performance are the tensile strength, elastic modulus, and strain to

failure. Table 1 provides a general comparison of these properties, along with density, for the various high performance

fiber materials. Note the difference in tensile strength

between Kevlar 29 used for the old PASGT vests and Kelvar

KM2 used for the new Interceptor vests. The HMWPE and

aramid fibers are used as fabrics for flexible military body

armors, whereas S-2 Glass is used in rigid composite armor

applications. PBO fibers have not been used for military

applications, and M5 is still in developmental stages. Both

HMWPE and aramid fibers are also used in fiber-reinforced

PMCs for rigid armor applications. Figure 9a indicates that

Spectra 1000 fabrics provide a higher V50 PBL at a lighter

weight than Kevlar 29. Figure 9b shows that Spectra 1000

provides a higher level of protection at the same thickness as

Kevlar 29 up until approximately 0.7 inches, where the level

of protection provided by the two fibers is approximately

equal. At thicknesses greater than 0.7 inches Kevlar 29 outperforms Spectra 1000 in terms of ballistic performance.

RESINS

Resins for fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composite armors

can be either thermoplastics or thermosets. In general, thermoplastics offer greater impact resistance and processibility,

but lack the thermal and chemical resistance of thermosets.

Table 1. Typical Fiber Properties.a

Fiber Density (g/cm3) Elastic Modulus (GPa) Tensile Strength (MPa) Strain to Failure (%)

Glass

S-glass[10] 2.48 90 4400 5.7

Aramid

Technora[10] 1.39 70 3000 4.4

Twaron[10] 1.45 121 3100 2.0

Kevlar 29[17] 1.44 70 2965 4.2

Kevlar 129[17] 1.44 96 3390 3.5

Kevlar 49[17] 1.44 113 2965 2.6

Kelvar KM2[18] 1.44 70 3300 4.0

HMWPE

Spectra 900[17] 0.97 73 2400 2.8

Spectra 1000[17] 0.97 103 2830 2.8

Spectra 2000[19] 0.97 124 3340 3.0

Dyneema[20] 0.97 87 2600 3.5

PBO

Zylon AS[20] 1.54 180 5800 3.5

Zylon HM[20] 1.56 270 5800 2.5

PIPD

M5 (2001 sample)[21] 1.70 271 3960 1.4

M5 (goal)[21] - 450 9500 2.5

aThe data presented are typical values and thus will vary dependent upon fiber denier.

(a) V50 versus Areal Density (b) V50 versus Thickness

Figure 9. V50 Comparison of Fabrics[18].

0.30 cal. Fragment Simulating Projectile

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

01 23 456 78

Areal Density (lb/ft2)

Spectra 1000,

650 denier-plain weave

Kevlar 29,

1500 denier-basket weave

V50 (ft/s)

0.30 cal. Fragment Simulating Projectile

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Thickness (in.)

Spectra 1000,

650 denier-plain weave

Kevlar 29,

1500 denier-basket weave

V50 (ft/s)
The V50 PBL as defined by MIL-STD-662F, V50 Ballistic Test for Armor is the most common

method for assessing lightweight armor materials for ballistic performance.[i] The final state of

a witness plate placed behind the armor panel determines the experimental outcome of the ballistic test, as shown in the figure. Two situations may occur as a result of the ballistic test:

• Complete penetration (evidenced by visibility of light through the witness plate) takes place

when the witness plate is completely perforated by projectile or plate spall.

• Partial penetration occurs if no perforation is observed (even if test panel may be perforated)

through the “witness plate.” 

The area corresponding to a velocity range causing a

mixture of partial and complete penetration is the Zone

of Mixed Results (ZMR). 

The V50 may be defined as the average of an equal

number of highest partial penetration velocities and the

lowest complete penetration velocities which occur

within a specified velocity spread. A 0.020 inch (0.51

mm) thick 2024-T3 sheet of aluminum is placed 6±1/2

inches (152±12.7 mm) behind and parallel to the target to witness complete penetrations. Normally at least

two partial and two complete penetration velocities are

used to compute the V50 value. Four, six, and ten-round ballistic limits are frequently used. The

maximum allowable velocity span is dependent on the armor material and test conditions.

Maximum velocity spans of 60, 90, 100, and 125 feet per second (ft/s) (18, 27, 30, and 38

m/s) are frequently used. Disadvantages with this test are the wide latitude of V50 values and

the absence of specification for specimen size.

REFERENCES

[i] MIL-STD-662F, V50 Ballistic Test for Armor, US Army Research Laboratory, Weapons & Materials

Research Directorate, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, December 1997

[ii] J.H. Graves and Captain H. Kolev, Joint Technical Coordinating Group on Aircraft Survivability

Interlaboratory Ballistic Test Program, Army Research Laboratory, June 1995

http://iac.dtic.mil/amptiac The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2 7

Thermoplastics have therefore found limited

use in military armor systems in the form of

body armor components. Spectra Shield®‡‡,

however, is a commercial product that uses

cross-ply fabrics sandwiched between layers

of thermoplastic resins.[22] Vehicle armors

primarily consist of one of the high performance fiber materials discussed earlier in this

article along with an epoxy, polyester, vinyl

ester, or phenolic thermoset resin.

Epoxy, polyester, and vinyl ester are the primary resin materials for armor-grade composites, while phenolic resins are used in applications that require fire, smoke, and toxicity

(FST) control. In some armor composite systems, one of the three primary resins is used

for ballistic protection while a phenolic composite backplate provides FST resistance.

Epoxies provide the best structural characteristics of all the resins, and are available in a

wide range of formulations. They have excellent mechanical properties and good adhesion

to numerous materials, but require high processing temperatures to attain a high level of

Table 2. Thermoset Resin Comparison[23].

Resin Advantages Disadvantages

Polyester

Vinyl Ester

Epoxy

• Low cost

• Easy to process

• Good chemical resistance

• Good moisture resistance

• Fast cure time

• Room temperature cure

• Low cost

• Easy to process

• Low viscosity

• Room temperature cure

• Moisture resistant

• Good mechanical properties

• Excellent mechanical properties

(superior to vinyl esters)

• Good chemical resistance

• Good heat resistance

• Good adhesive properties with a

large variety of substrates

• Moisture resistant

• Variety of compositions available

• Good fracture toughness

• Flammable

• Toxic smoke upon combustion

• Average mechanical properties

• Flammable

• Smoke released upon combustion

•Expensive

• Requires high processing temperatures to achieve good properties

V50 Probable Ballistic

Limit (PBL)

Schematic Presentations of

Partial and Complete

Penetrations[ii].

PARTIAL

Penetration

COMPLETE

Penetration

Witness 

Plate

Witness plate is intact Witness plate is penetrated

by projectile or plate spall

Armor
8 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2

quality. Polyesters and vinyl esters are low cost, easily processed

composites with above average mechanical properties, but have

low compressive strengths. As a result of this deficiency, they

are normally relegated to non-structural applications.

Phenolics, like the polyesters, have low compressive strength

properties, but provide higher temperature capabilities and low

smoke generation upon combustion.

Ease of processing and the potential release of toxic chemicals

are concerns with composites. Processing methods, such as resin

transfer molding, require resin materials to have low viscosities

in order for the finished product to have a low porosity, and thus

good performance. In the case of higher viscosity materials, like

epoxies, high processing temperatures and/or additives are used

to produce the required low viscosity for processing. High processing temperatures, however, correspond to higher costs and

may also limit fiber selection, while additives can produce toxic

byproducts. The trade-offs of performance, ease of processing,

and costs are summarized in Table 2 for the three structural

resins. In most applications, vinyl ester resins have replaced

polyester resins as they are similar in many properties, but with

the added benefit of having superior mechanical properties.

FIBER-REINFORCED PMC ARMOR

The performance of fiber-reinforced PMC armors not only

depends upon the fiber and resin material properties, but also

the fiber structure, fiber volume, fiber compatibility with the

resin, and additives. Most commercial fiber composites for

armors consist of unidirectional, plain, or basket weave fiber

structures. Weaving fibers does not generally improve the

penetration resistance in composites, because the fibers are

confined by the resin and the energy can not be effectively

transferred to adjacent fibers as is the case of fiber mats. Three

dimensional weaves limit delamination and thus improve

multi-hit performance of composites. Figure 10 compares the

ballistic performance of various woven S-2 Glass fiber composites subjected to a 0.22 caliber fragment simulating projectile

(FSP) using finite element modeling (FEM) and experiments

(EXP). Through-the-thickness stitching of composite plies is

another means of limiting delamination problems, as shown in

Figure 11 for S-2 Glass composites tested with a 0.50 caliber

fragment simulating projectile at 1550 feet per second.

The ballistic performance of fiber-reinforced PMC armors is

largely attributed to the fibers. Maximizing fiber volume in a

(a) V50 versus Areal Density (b) V50 versus Thickness

Figure 12. General Comparison of Fiber-Reinforced PMC Armors[18].

Figure 10. Ballistic Performance Comparison of S-2 Glass-Based

Composite of Weave Structures[24].

Figure 11. Effect of Stitching on Ballistic Performance of

S-2 Glass Fiber-Reinforced Composites[6].

Plain

Weave

Triaxial

Weave

3D

Orthogonal

Weave

3D

Triaxial

Weave

3D

Braided

Weave

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

0.20

0.16

0.12

0.08

0.04

0.00

FEM

EXP

V50 (ft/s)

Delamination Diameter (m)

Stitched Stitched

Vinyl Ester Epoxy

0.30 cal. Fragment Simulating Projectile

0.22 cal. Fragment Simulating Projectile 0.50 cal. Fragment Simulating Projectile

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Areal Density (lb/ft2)

Spectra 1000, 650 denier-plain weave

KM2, 850 denier-plain weave

Kevlar 29, 1500 denier-basket weave

S-2 Glass, no background data

Spectra 1000, 650 denier-plain weave

KM2, 850 denier-plain weave

Kevlar 29, 1500 denier-basket weave

S-2 Glass, no background data

V50 (ft/s)

0.30 cal. Fragment Simulating Projectile

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Thickness (in.)

V50 (ft/s)
http://iac.dtic.mil/amptiac The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2 9

composite using the top performance weave structure will

therefore optimize the ballistic performance of composites.

Most PMC armors have fiber volumes in the vicinity of 60 percent. Coupling agents which help bond fibers to resins can

influence penetration resistance. For armor applications, fiber

pull-out is beneficial under impact loading, since the failure

mechanism absorbs energy. Additives, in some cases, are introduced primarily to increase fracture toughness of the composite. Thermoplastics and rubber materials may be used for this

purpose. Figure 12 is a comparison of typical V50 data of some

fiber-reinforced PMC armor materials, and it shows that the

performance of the composite materials reflects the performance of the fibers previously displayed in Figure 9.

SUMMARY

High performance fibers provide the means to produce lightweight fabrics for body armor as well as lightweight PMCs for

vehicle armor. The availability of different high performance

fibers and resins along with the ability to tailor fibers allows 

versatility in designing fiber-reinforced PMC armors. The

development of improved lightweight armor materials will 

continue to play an important role in the transformation of US

military forces to meet present and future threats.

NOTES & REFERENCES

Citation of companies and product trade names does not constitute an

endorsement or approval of the use thereof.

* Interceptor is a registered trademark of Point Blank Body Armor,

Inc.

† Kevlar is a registered trademark of the E.I. du Pont de Nemours and

Company

‡ Twaron is a registered trademark of the Teijin Company

§ Technora is a registered trademark of the Teijin Company

|| Spectra is a registered trademark of the Allied Signal Corporation

# Dyneema is a registered trademark of the DSM High Performance

Fibers Company

** Zylon is a registered trademark of the Toyobo Company

†† M5 is a registered trademark of Magellan Systems International

‡‡ Spectra Shield is a registered trademark of Honeywell International, Inc.

[1] R.E. Wittman and R.F. Rolsten, Armor – of Men and Aircraft, 12th

National SAMPE Symposium, SAMPE, 1967

[2] Fort Hood, US Army, (http://www.hood.army.mil/)

[3] The Interceptor System, US Marine Corps, (http://www.

marines.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/lookup/200532317129?

opendocument)

[4] P.J. Hogg, Composites for Ballistic Applications, Journal of 

Composites Processing, CPA, Bromsgrove U.K., March 2003,

(http://www.composites-proc-assoc.co.uk/view.php?pid =24)

[5] H.H. Yang, Kevlar Aramid Fiber, John Wiley & Sons, 1993

[6] B.K. Fink, A.M. Monib, and J.W. Gillespie Jr., Damage Tolerance

of Thick-Section Composites Subjected to Ballistic Impact, Army

Research Laboratory, ARL-TR-2477, May 2001

[7] F. Ko and A. Geshury, Textile Preforms for Composite Materials

Processing, Advanced Materials and Processes Information Analysis

Center, AMPT-19, August 2002

[8] S.J. Walling, S-2 Glass Fiber: Its Role in Military Applications,

International Conference on Composite Materials, Metallurgical

Society of AIME, August 1985, pp. 443-456

[9] F.T. Wallenberger, Introduction to Reinforcing Fibers, ASM

Handbook – Volume 21: Composites, ASM International, 2001

[10] K.K. Chang, Aramid Fibers, ASM Handbook – Volume 21:

Composites, ASM International, 2001

[11] Fibre Reinforcements for Composite Materials, ed. A.R. Bunsell,

Elsevier Science Publishers, 1988

[12] D.J. Sikkema, M.G. Northolt, and B. Pourdeyhimi, Assessment of

New High-Performance Fibers for Advanced Applications, MRS Bulletin,

Vol. 28. No. 8, August 2003, pp. 579-584

[13] D.J. Viechnicki, A.A. Anctil, D.J. Papetti, and J.J. Prifti,

Lightweight Armor – A Status Report, US Army Materials Technology

Laboratory, MTL-TR-89-8, January 1989

[14] PBO Fiber Zylon, Technical Information (Revised 2001.9),

Toyobo Co., Ltd.

[15] X. Hu and A.J. Lesser, Post-treatment of Poly-p-phenylenebenzobisoxazole (PBO) Fibers Using Supercritical Carbon Dioxide, University

of Massachusetts, (http://www.policeone.com/policeone/data/images/

upload/PostTreatmentPBO.pdf)

[16] Status Report to the Attorney General on Body Armor Safety

Initiative Testing and Activities, National Institute of Justice, March

2004, (http://vests.ojp.gov/docs/ArmorReportWithPress.pdf?popup

Window=Y)

[17] Fabric Handbook, Hexcel Fabrics, Austin TX

[18] L.A. Twisdale, R.A. Frank Jr. and F.M. Lavelle, Airmobile Shelter

Analysis Volume II, Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency, ESLTR-92-74, February 1994

[19] Manufacturer Data, Honeywell

[20] Manufacturer Data, Toyobo

[21] P.M. Cunniff, M.A. Auerbach, E. Vetter and D.J. Sikkema, High

Performance “M5” Fiber for Ballistics/Structural Composites, 23rd Army

Science Conference, 2004

[22] Honeywell International, Inc., (http://spectrafiber.com)

[23] E.F. Gillio, Co-injection Resin Transfer Molding of Hybrid

Composites, Center for Composite Materials, University of Delaware,

CCM 97-23, 1997

[24] C-F. Yen and A.A. Caiazzo, 3D Woven Composites for New and

Innovative Impact and Penetration Resistant Systems, US Army Research

Office, July 2001
10 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2

Textile Preforms

for Composite Material Technology

This publication is the first and only

one of its kind – A panoramic and 

thorough examination of fiber/textile

perform technology and its critical

role in the development and manufacture of high-performance composite 

materials. This product was prepared 

in collaboration with Drexel University and authored by Dr. Frank Ko, the

Director of Drexel’s Fibrous Materials

Research Center. Dr. Ko is one the

world’s foremost authorities on fibrous

preforms and textile technology.

Order Code: AMPT-19 Price: $100 US, $150 Non-US

Computational Materials Science (CMS) 

A Critical Review and Technology Assessment

AMPTIAC surveyed DOD, goverment, and academic efforts studying

materials science by computational

methods and from this research compiled this report. It provides an indepth examination of CMS and

describes many of the programs,

techniques, and methodologies being

used and developed. The report was

sponsored by Dr. Lewis Sloter, Staff

Specialist, Materials and Structures, 

in the Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Science and

Technology. 

BONUS MATERIAL: Dr. Sloter also hosted a workshop (organized by AMPTIAC) in April 2001 for the

nation’s leaders in CMS to discuss their current programs and predict the future of CMS. The workshop

proceedings comprise all original submitted materials

for the workshop – presentations, papers, minutes,

and roundtable discussion highlights and are included with purchase of the above report.

Order Code: AMPT-25 Price: $65 US, $95 Non-US 

Blast and Penetration Resistant Materials

This State-of-the-Art Report compiles the recent and legacy DOD

unclassified data on blast and penetration resistant materials (BPRM)

and how they are used in structures

and armor. Special attention was

paid to novel combinations of

materials and new, unique uses for

traditional materials. This report

was sponsored by Dr. Lewis Sloter,

Staff Specialist, Materials and

Structures, in the Office of the

Deputy Undersecretary of Defense

for Science & Technology. 

BONUS MATERIAL: Dr. Sloter also hosted a workshop

in April, 2001 (organized by AMPTIAC) for selected

experts in the field of BPRM and its application. The

workshop focused on novel approaches to structural

protection from both blast effects and penetration phenomena. Some areas covered are: building protection

from bomb blast and fragments, vehicle protection,

storage of munitions and containment of accidental

detonations, and executive protection. The proceedings of this workshop are included with purchase of

the above.

Order Code: AMPT-26 Price: $115 US, $150 Non-US

Applications of Structural Materials for Protection

from Explosions

This State-of-the-Art Report provides an

examination of existing technologies for

protecting structures from explosions.

The report does not discuss materials

and properties on an absolute scale;

rather, it addresses the functionality of

structural materials in the protection

against blast. Each chapter incorporates

information according to its relevance to

blast mitigation. For example, the section on military structures describes concrete in arches, and concrete in roof

beams for hardened shelters. The discussion on concrete is not limited to materials only; rather, it addresses the

issue of structural components that incorporate concrete, and describes

the materials that work in concert with the concrete to produce a blastresistant structure. The report also illustrates various materials used for

concrete reinforcement.

Order Code: AMPT-21 Price: $100 US, $150 Non-US

Product Information and Ordering

Phone Online Email

(315)339-7047 http://amptiac.alionscience.com/products gnash@alionscience.com

PRODUCTS PRODUCTS

Our complete product catalog is available online at

http://amptiac.alionscience.com/products
http://iac.dtic.mil/amptiac The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2 11

Material EASE

Material Failure Modes, Part II

A Brief Tutorial on Impact, Spalling, Wear, Brinelling, Thermal Shock, and Radiation Damage

Benjamin D. Craig

AMPTIAC

Rome, NY

30AMPTIAC

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this article is to briefly introduce several material

failure modes. A better understanding of these failure mechanisms will enable more appropriate decisions when selecting

materials for a particular application. Even a basic knowledge

and awareness can help design engineers to be better equipped in

delaying or preventing the failure of a material or component.

Failure can occur in systems with moving or non-moving

parts. In systems with moving parts, friction often leads to material degradation such as wear, and collisions between two components can result in surface or more extensive material damage.

Systems with non-moving parts are also prone to material failure, especially when certain types of materials are subjected to

extreme temperature changes or to high energy radiation environments.

Material failure often manifests itself in the form of cracking,

but it can also appear as material disintegration, mechanical

property degradation, or even physical deformation. For instance,

impact failure can occur by fracture, deformation, or material

disintegration, while radiation damage can cause a severe degradation of a material’s properties. These failure modes, as well as

spalling, wear, brinelling, and thermal shock are described

throughout the rest of this article.

IMPACT

The collision of two masses, one of which can be stationary, causes a sudden increase in stress or an intense change in pressure

(as in an explosive blast), and may result in impact failure. This

shock loading can cause permanent deformation or fracture to

one or both of the colliding bodies, which can render that material unable to perform its intended function. Sudden impact

loading can result in shock waves which induce localized stresses and strains causing mechanical damage to the material. There

are several different types of impact failure including impact

fracture, impact deformation, impact wear, impact fretting, and

impact fatigue. Each of these will be discussed in some detail in

the following sections.

Impact Fracture

The most extreme consequence of sudden shock loading results

in fracture. This can be a catastrophic failure mode, as it occurs

rapidly under the load of a sudden impact, and it is common in

brittle materials, such as ceramics. For example, when a ceramic armor tile is hit with a projectile it likely will sustain multiple

fractures. This failure mode is in contrast to impact deformation.

Impact Deformation

The energy imparted to a material during sudden shock loading

can be absorbed through deformation. Plastic deformation

caused by this sudden shock loading can preclude a structure

from performing its intended function. This is a failure mode

known as impact deformation, and typically occurs in ductile

materials, such as metals.

Impact Wear

Impact wear occurs when a material is repeatedly impacted by

another solid mass causing a gradual deterioration of the surface. The impact of large or small masses or particles can cause

deformation to the material being impacted. This deformation

can result in the ejection of particles from the material’s surface,

or the formation of near-surface cracks that under repeated

impact can cause pieces of the surface to fracture (see description

of surface fatigue wear in this article). In the case of repeated

impact by particles that are very small relative to the size of the

material being impacted, the wear that ensues could be considered erosive wear. Erosive wear is the continuous deterioration 

of a material by a fluid carrying solid particles. When the fluid 

is traveling in a direction that is normal to the surface of the

material, it can be considered impact wear.

This issue of MaterialEASE is Part Two of a three part series on material failure modes. MaterialEASE 29, published in Volume

9, Number 1 of the AMPTIAC Quarterly, introduced the concept of material failure modes and covered fracture, ductile failure,

elastic deformation, creep, and fatigue. This article continues the discussion with brief descriptions of impact, spalling, wear,

brinelling, thermal shock, and radiation damage. The next MaterialEASE article will complete the series on material failure

modes, and the three articles taken together will make a valuable desk reference for any professional making material selection and design decisions. - Editor
12 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2

Material EASE

Impact Fretting

Impact fretting is a fretting damage mechanism (see section on

fretting wear in this article) where the two contacting bodies

become physically disengaged momentarily and suddenly resume

contact. This occurs while the two materials continue their relative sliding motion causing both fretting and impact damage.

This sudden separation and subsequent impact can cause an

increase in the fretting wear rate, as an additional damage mechanism is employed.

Impact Fatigue

Impact fatigue is a failure mode obviously related to impact

damage, but is briefly described in the section on fatigue failure

modes published in MaterialEASE 29, AMPTIAC Quarterly

Volume 9, Number 1.[1]

SPALLING

Spalling is the deterioration of a component as fragments from

the surface break free from the material. This phenomenon can

occur through several mechanisms including the formation and

propagation of fatigue cracks underneath the surface. This

mechanism is related to the surface fatigue mechanism, which

is discussed in the following section. Another mechanism that

leads to spalling involves the propagation of shock waves through

to the opposite side of a material after being impacted, which

results in significant localized stress and consequently cracking

near the surface. This sub-surface cracking causes surface fractures and particles to be dislodged from the material’s surface.

Similarly, thermal shock can cause spalling failure (see section

on thermal shock in this article). Spalling can occur in metals or ceramics or even surface coatings; it often occurs in armor

materials, gear teeth, and bearings. Figure 1 shows spalling failure of a gear tooth.

WEAR

Wear is a general term used to describe the deterioration of a

material’s surface caused by frictional forces generated as a result

of contact between two surfaces that are moving in relation to one

another. Temperature has an effect on the wear rate (rate at which

a material deteriorates under frictional forces) because friction

generates heat, which in turn can affect the microstructure of 

the material and make it more susceptible to deterioration.

Components such as bearings, cams, and gears are often 

susceptible to wear. There are several different types of wear,

including adhesive wear, abrasive wear, corrosive wear, surface

fatigue wear, impact wear, and fretting wear. Most of these will be

discussed in some detail in the following sections.

Minimizing or protecting a material’s surface from wear can

be accomplished through several methods including the use of

lubricants and surface treatments.[3] Selecting a material that 

is resistant to wear, such as one having high hardness (e.g.

ceramics), is also a good method to prevent excessive wear.

Alternatively, hard coatings such as tungsten-carbide-cobalt can

be used to augment the hardness of a component having a relatively soft surface. Surface or heat treatments can also be used to

increase the hardness or smoothness of the surface. Exampes

include carburizing and superfinishing, which is described in

Volume 7, Number 1 of the AMPTIAC Quarterly.[4]

Adhesive Wear

Adhesive wear occurs between two surfaces in relative motion as

the result of high contact stresses, which are generated because 

of the inherent roughness of material surfaces. No matter how

finely polished a surface is, two materials in contact with each

other do not mate completely. This allows localized areas on the

surface to sustain a greater percentage of a mechanical load,

while the areas that are not in contact with the opposing surface

absorb none of the mechanical load. In adhesive wear, the peaks

on the adjacent surfaces that do come into contact will plastically deform under pressure and form atomic bonds at the interface

(in some cases this is considered solid-phase welding). As the 

relative motion between the surfaces continues, the shear stress

at the now atomically bonded contact point increases until the

shear strength limit of one of the materials is reached and the

contact point is broken bringing with it a piece of the opposing

surface. The broken material can then either be released as debris

or remain bonded to the other material’s surface. This process 

is demonstrated in Figure 2. Adhesive wear is also known as 

scoring, scuffing, galling or seizing (galling and seizure are

described briefly below).[3,5]

High hardness and low strength are desirable properties for

applications requiring resistance to adhesive wear. However, these

properties are somewhat mutually exclusive, which makes composite materials desirable for such applications. Examples of

resistant monolithic materials include low strength, high ductility polymers and high hardness, low density ceramics. Sintered

copper infiltrated with polytetrafluoroethylene (TeflonTM) and

lead particle reinforced bronze materials are specific examples of

composite materials that are highly resistant to adhesive wear.[3]

Figure 1. Spalling Failure on the

Surface of a Gear Tooth Caused by

Surface Fatigue[2].
http://iac.dtic.mil/amptiac The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2 13

A DVANCED M A TERIALS AND P ROCESSES T ECHNOLOGY AMPTIAC

Galling and Seizure

Galling is an extreme form of adhesive wear that involves excessive friction between the two surfaces resulting in localized

solid-phase welding and subsequent spalling of the mated parts.

This process causes significant damage to the surface of one 

or both materials. Seizure is even more extreme in that the two

surfaces experience a sufficient amount of solid-phase welding

such that the two components can no longer move.

Abrasive Wear

Gouging, grinding and scratching are examples of abrasive

wear, which occurs when a solid surface experiences the displacement or removal of material as a result of a forceful interaction with another surface or particle. Particles can become

trapped in between the two surfaces in contact, and the relative

motion between them results in abrasion (displacement and

removal of surface material) of the surface that has a lower

hardness. This process is demonstrated in Figure 3. Sources of

particles can include foreign contaminants (particles originating outside the system), wear debris, or solid constituents suspended in a fluid. Alternatively, abrasive wear can occur in the

absence of loose particles when the roughness of one surface

causes abrasion and/or removal of material from the other surface. This wear mechanism differs from adhesive wear in that

there is no atomic bonding between the two surfaces. Abrasive

erosion occurs when a fluid carrying solid particles is traveling

in a direction parallel (as opposed to perpendicular which is

impact wear) to the surface, and the particles gradually deteriorate the material’s surface.

Material hardness is a critical factor in the abrasive wear rate

of the surface, as higher hardness results in a lower wear rate.

Moreover, if the hardness of the material’s surface is higher than

the hardness of the abrading particles, then little wear is observed

and the particles are likely to be broken into smaller pieces.

Materials with high hardness and toughness properties are wellsuited to prevent or minimize abrasive wear. Examples of materials that are inherently resistant to abrasive wear include high

hardness or surface hardened steels, cobalt alloys and ceramics.[3]

Corrosive Wear

When the effects of corrosion and wear are combined, a more

rapid degradation of the material’s surface may occur. This

process is known as corrosive wear. Films or coatings are often

used to protect a base metal or alloy from harsh environments

that would otherwise cause it to corrode. If such a coating were

subjected to abrasive or adhesive wear causing a loss of coating

from the material’s surface, for instance, the base metal or alloy

could be exposed and consequently corroded. Alternatively, a surface that is corroded or oxidized may be mechanically weakened

and more likely to wear at an increased rate. Furthermore, corrosion products including oxide particles that are dislodged from

the material’s surface can subsequently act as abrasive particles.

Surface Fatigue Wear

Surface or contact fatigue occurs when two material surfaces that

are in contact with each other in a rolling or combined rolling

and sliding motion create an alternating force or stress oriented

in a direction normal to the surface. The contact stress initiates

the formation of cracks slightly beneath the surface, which then

grow back toward the surface causing pits to form, as particles of

the material are ejected or worn away. This form of fatigue is

common in applications where an object repeatedly rolls across

the surface of a material resulting in a high concentration of

stress at each point along the surface. For example, rollingelement bearings, gears, and railroad wheels commonly exhibit

surface fatigue.[3,6] Figure 4 illustrates an example of the surface fatigue mechanism.

Figure 3. Illustration of Abrasive Wear Mechanism[3].

Figure 2. Illustration of Adhesive Wear Mechanism[3].

Bonded junction

Sheared asperity

Bonded asperity

Force/Pressure

Abrasive

particle

Debris

Debris

Asperity

Travel

Horizontal arrows 

indicate directions 

of sliding

Figure 4. Illustration of Surface Fatigue Mechanism[3].

Cracks originate below surface

Solid

Direction of rotation
14 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2

Material EASE

Impact Wear

Impact wear is discussed in the section addressing impact failure modes.

Fretting Wear

Surfaces that are in intimate contact with each other and are subject to a small amplitude relative motion that is cyclic in nature,

such as vibration, tend to incur wear. Fretting wear is normally

accompanied by the corrosion or oxidization of the debris and worn

surface. Unlike normal wear mechanisms only a small amount of

the debris is lost from the system; instead the debris remains within the conjoined surfaces. The mated surfaces essentially exhibit

adhesion through mechanical bonding, and the oscillatory motion

causes the surface to fragment, thereby creating oxidized debris. If

the debris becomes embedded in the surface of the softer metal, the

wear rate may be reduced. If the debris remains free at the interface

between the two materials the wear rate may be increased. Fatigue

cracks also have a tendency to form in the region of wear, resulting

in a further degradation of the material’s surface. Liquid or solid

lubricants (e.g. surface treatments, coatings, etc.), residual stresses

(e.g. through shot or laser peening), surface grooving (e.g. to

enable the release of debris), and/or appropriate material selection

for the material pair can help to reduce the effects or prevent the

occurrence of fretting wear.[7]

BRINELLING

Brinelling can be very basically defined as denting. When a localized area of a material’s surface is repeatedly impacted or is subjected to a static load that overcomes the material’s yield strength

causing it to permanently deform, it is considered to have undergone brinelling. Bearings are often susceptible to failure by

brinelling since an indentation can cause an increase in vibration, noise and heating.[7] Brinelling failures can be caused by

improper handling, such as forcing a bearing into a housing, 

by dropping the bearing, or by severe vibrations, such as those

produced during ultrasonic cleaning.[8] Selecting a material

with a high hardness or taking extra care during handling and

cleaning can help prevent brinelling.

THERMAL SHOCK

Thermal shock is a failure mechanism that occurs in materials

that exhibit a significant temperature gradient (indicating a 

sudden and dramatic change in temperature has occurred). 

For instance, if the temperature gradient is so large that the

material experiences thermal stresses (or strains) great enough

to overcome its strength, it may lead to fracture, especially if 

the material is constrained. An example of the consequence 

of thermal shock is shown in Figure 5. Awareness of a system or

component’s operating conditions when selecting materials is

important in order to prevent thermal shock failure from occurring. The designer should choose a material that has an appropriate thermal conductivity and heat capacity for the intended

environmental conditions. In addition, residual stresses (from

shot or laser peening, for example) can help accommodate 

thermal stresses that are generated during thermal shock, thereby potentially protecting the material from fracture.

RADIATION DAMAGE

The space environment is very unfriendly to most materials due to

an array of harsh conditions that can easily and rapidly degrade the

material and/or its properties. Degradation of an exposed material

often comes as a result of the different types of radiation present in

Figure 5. Brittle Fracture of a Ductile Weld Material that Is Constrained – Caused by

High Stresses Induced from a Rapid 1000°F Change in Temperature. (Photo Courtesy

of Sachs, Salvaterra & Associates, Inc.)
http://iac.dtic.mil/amptiac The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2 15

A DVANCED M A TERIALS AND P ROCESSES T ECHNOLOGY AMPTIAC

space. Radiation is not limited to the space environment, however,

as there are a number of environments and specific applications

that subject materials to this damaging energy (Figure 6).

High-energy radiation, such as neutrons in a nuclear reactor,

can damage almost any material including metals, ceramics and

polymers.[3] Typically, when a material is subjected to high-energy radiation its properties are altered through structural mutation

in order to absorb some of the energy that is incident on the material. For instance, when a metal is exposed to neutron radiation

from a nuclear reactor,

atoms in the metal are displaced resulting in the creation of defects. These

defects can diffuse and

coalesce to create crack

initiation sites or can simply leave the metal brittle

and susceptible to failure

through another mechanism. Another portion of

the energy incident on the

metal is absorbed and converted to heat. Metals are often better suited to withstand radiation energy than are ceramics. Typically, the ductility, thermal

conductivity and electrical conductivity are negatively impacted

when a metal is exposed to radiation.[3] Ceramics are affected by

radiation to varying extents depending on the type of inherent

bonding (i.e. covalent or ionic). Ionically-bonded ceramics experience decreases in ductility, thermal conductivity and optical

properties, but the damage can be reversed with proper heat treatment (similar to metals). Covalently-bonded ceramics experience

similar damage, however the damage is somewhat permanent.[3]

Polymers are especially susceptible to radiation even at low

energy levels, such as UV radiation. Damage from radiation in

polymers usually manifests itself as cracking. For this reason,

polymers have been known for their cracking problems in outdoor applications, where they are constantly exposed to UV radiation. UV blockers, absorbers and stabilizers are often added to

polymers used for outdoor applications to augment their ability

to withstand incident radiation energy.

CONCLUSION

A number of material failure modes were introduced in this 

article including impact, spalling, wear, brinelling, thermal

shock and radiation damage. These mechanisms can affect

metals, polymers, ceramics, and composites in various applications and in many different environments. Thus, it is important to take these failure modes into consideration during the

design phases of a component or system in order to make

appropriate materials selection decisions.

MaterialEASE 31 will be published in Volume 9, Number 3, 

of the AMPTIAC Quarterly and will contain the final installment

of failure modes. These will include uniform, galvanic, crevice,

pitting, intergranular, and erosion corrosion; selective leaching/

dealloying; hydrogen damage; stress corrosion cracking; and 

corrosion fatigue.

REFERENCES

[1] B.D. Craig, Material Failure Modes, Part I: A Brief Tutorial on

Fracture, Ductile Failure, Elastic Deformation, Creep, and Fatigue,

AMPTIAC Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 1, AMPTIAC, 2005, pp. 9-16,

http://amptiac.alionscience.com/pdf/2005MaterialEASE29.pdf

[2] NASA Spur Gear Fatigue Data, NASA Glenn Research Center,

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/5900/5950/Fatigue-data.htm

[3] J.P. Shaffer, A. Saxena, S.D. Antolovich, T.H. Sanders, Jr., and

S.B. Warner, The Science and Design of Engineering Materials,

2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1999

[4] P. Niskanen, A. Manesh, and R. Morgan, Reducing Wear 

With Superfinish Technology, AMPTIAC Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 1,

AMPTIAC, 2003, pp.3-9, http://amptiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMP

Q7_1ART01.pdf.

[5] Wear Failures, Metals Handbook, 9th Edition, Vol. 11: Failure

Analysis and Prevention, ASM International, 1986, pp. 145-162

[6] J.R. Davis (editor), ASM Materials Engineering Dictionary, ASM

International, 1992

[7] J.A. Collins and S.R. Daniewicz, Failure Modes: Performance and

Service Requirements for Metals, M. Kutz (editor), Handbook of

Materials Selection, John Wiley and Sons, 2002, pp. 705-773

[8] Failures of Rolling-Element Bearings, Metals Handbook, 9th

Edition, Vol. 11: Failure Analysis and Prevention, ASM International,

1986, pp. 490-513

[9] Projects Archive, Air Force Research Laboratory, http://www.afrl.af.

mil/projects.html

Figure 6. CO2 Laser Used to Study the

Effects of Radiation on Materials[9].

... Don’t forget to look for Material Failure Modes, Part 3

in the next issue of MaterialEASE!
16 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2

In Volume 6, Number 3 of the 

AMPTIAC Quarterly, a feature article

was published providing an overview 

of the Mobile Parts Hospital (MPH)

and its potential capabilities. Since

publication of this article in late 2002

there have been significant developments and successes with the MPH

program.

In October 2003, under the guidance of General Paul J. Kern, US Army

Materiel Command (AMC) Commanding General, the MPH

was deployed to the Forward Repair Activity (FRA) at Camp

Arifjan, Kuwait. Since its arrival in Kuwait, it has been manufacturing parts to support

Operation Iraqi Freedom.

This mobile rapid manufacturing facility has been fabricating parts to repair vehicles

and equipment and restore

them to working order in Iraq.

Two additional Mobile Parts

Hospitals have subsequently

been deployed to assist in the

Global War on Terrorism.

One of these units is now

operating in Camp Anaconda,

Iraq, and the other at Bagram

Airbase in Afghanistan.

Thousands of replacement

parts have been produced,

including parts designed onsite to support soldier’s

requirements. In less than six

months since it arrived in

Kuwait it had manufactured

over 1600 replacement parts

that were not readily available

elsewhere, including bolts,

brass studs, and pulleys

among many other parts. This

has led to the repair of M2

Bradley engines and HEMTT

8V92TA and HMMWV

engines and differentials. The

Agile Manufacturing Cell is

able to supply larger parts or parts needed in greater quantities

from Detroit, Michigan, where it has access to more raw

materials and can perform high-speed machining, welding,

heat treating, and plating. When ready the parts are then

shipped to the FRA. 

There has been a substantial demand for parts manufactured by the MPH, which has been heavily supporting the 

US Army’s Forward Repair Activity in Arifjan, Kuwait, the

368th Engineering Battalion, the 514th Maintenance

Company, the 1083rd Transportation Company, and the 3rd

PERSCOM Maintenance Office. To date, over 12,000 repair

parts have been manufactured by the MPH.

There is one particular success story that exemplifies the

support provided to the war-fighter by the MPH. On short

notice, the MPH designed and fabricated gun mounts for two

5.56 mm Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) machine guns to

retrofit a HMMWV with additional and more strategic firepower. The MPH team manufactured two pintle assemblies

with locking pins consisting of six parts, and delivered them

within 5 hours. These gun mounts improved the ability of soldiers who were transporting supplies into Basra, Iraq nightly

to defend themselves, as they frequently came under attack.

The new gun mounts provided greater vertical as well as 180°

rotational mobility so that both sides of the HMMWV could

be easily defended during an

ambush, and attackers on

overpasses and buildings

could be easily subdued.

Similar mounting hardware

has since been fabricated for

other weapons such as 0.50

cal. machine guns. As mentioned in our last MPH

update (see Volume 8,

Number 3 of the AMPTIAC

Quarterly) this new gun

mount was selected as one of

the Army’s top 10 inventions

for 2003.

Further research and development is being done to add

capabilities and increase part

production in MPH units

that will be deployed in the

future. The present system is

able to build consistent, high

quality parts, but the goal is

to produce them at a much

faster rate. The layer-by-layer

powder deposition and laser

sintering process in its current status achieves a deposition rate of three cubic inches per hour for fabricating

parts. Over the coming year,

the laser and ancillary systems

will be upgraded to achieve a deposition rate of eight cubic

inches per hour. The overall goal is to deposit high quality

material at a rate of twelve cubic inches per hour.

The MPH program continues to be a success story, as it is

actively supporting the US Military in Iraq, Afghanistan and

Kuwait. For more information on the MPH, please refer to

our article in Volume 6, Number 3 (2002) and the update in

Volume 8, Number 3 (2004) of the AMPTIAC Quarterly,

which are available in electronic form on the AMPTIAC website at http://amptiac.alionscience.com/quarterly.

Mobile Parts Hospital Update
http://iac.dtic.mil/amptiac The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2 17

Benjamin D. Craig

AMPTIAC

Rome, NY

INTRODUCTION

Conferences and symposia are productive means for transferring technology and fostering collaboration between

organizations and individuals. With the exchange of information, technology development can be advanced to a more

practical stage and possibly implemented in ways not previously considered. Furthermore, these meetings are excellent

for making connections with subject matter experts who

may help in finding solutions to future challenges.

The Army, Navy, Air Force, and other organizations within

the Department of Defense participate in, sponsor, or facilitate

a number of conferences and symposia. Throughout the calendar year there are many such conferences covering an array of

subject areas pertinent to the materials and processes community. This article provides brief introductions to many of the

important events hosted, sponsored or attended by the DOD

materials and processes community.

GENERAL MATERIALS, PROCESSING, AND 

MANUFACTURING CONFERENCES

Annual Conference on Composites, Materials, and Structures 

The Annual Conference on Composites, Materials, and

Structures, commonly referred to as the Cocoa Beach

Conference, has been held each year since 1977. The

Refractory Composites Working Group (RCWG) directly 

preceded today’s conference.[1]

The RCWG was formed in 1958 by the Air Force Materials

Laboratory (AFML) to provide a forum for discussion of

refractory coatings. Larry Hjelm and J.J. Gangler oversaw the

majority of the workshops, and they required attendees to

present data without promoting a product. These meetings

were initially known as the High Temperature Inorganic

Refractory Coatings Working Group. However, in the early

1960’s the name changed to the Refractory Composite

Working Group.[1]

While the RCWG held regular meetings, the CeramicMetals System (CMS) Division of the American Ceramic

Society also held meetings. The two groups overlapped membership and content. In January 1977, the RCWG merged

with the CMS Division under the guidance of Jerome Persh,

Jim Mueller, John Buckley, Jim McCauley, and Sy Bortz.

Today, the Annual Conference on Composites, Materials, and

Structures provides a forum for discussion of all high temperature materials crucial to our national defense. The next

Cocoa Beach Conference will be held in January 2006.

Attendance is limited to qualified individuals.[1]

Defense Manufacturing Conference

The Defense Manufacturing Conference brings together 

personnel from government, industry, and academia to

engage in an exchange of information for the purpose of

addressing defense manufacturing capabilities and needs 

for weapon systems. Topic areas typically include system and

subsystem affordability, sustainment efficiency, and domestic

technology transfer. DOD, government and industry initiatives are also discussed.[2]

The next conference, sponsored by the Joint Defense

Manufacturing Technology Panel, will be hosted by the Office

of Naval Research from November 28 through December 1,

2005 in Orlando, Florida. This year’s conference will be centered on the theme “Manufacturing in the Changing DOD

Environment.” Attendance is limited to qualified individuals.

Past conferences and their host city are listed in Table 1.

Sagamore Army Materials Research Conference

The Sagamore Army Materials Research Conference began in

1954, and each conference focuses on a materials-related topic.

Past themes include risk and failure analysis, residual stress and

stress relaxation, corrosion prevention and control, and most

recently, transparent materials. The objective of the conference

is to provide a forum for scientists and engineers from academia,

industry, and the government to discuss the subject of that year’s

conference and its importance to the Army and the greater

DOD materials communities.

Table 1. Past Defense Manufacturing Conferences.

Year Location

1993 San Francisco, California

1994 Phoenix, Arizona

1995 Dallas, Texas 

1996 Miami Beach, Florida

1997 Palm Springs, California

1998 New Orleans, Louisiana

1999 Miami Beach, Florida

2000 Tampa, Florida

2001 Las Vegas, Nevada

2002 Dallas, Texas

2003 Washington, DC

2004 Las Vegas, Nevada
18 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2

Advanced Materials Conference

The Low-Cost Titanium Workshop, which was held in

December 2003, was expanded into the 2005 Advanced

Materials Conference to bring together and

foster discussion between organizations

from industry and government on the

development and use of lightweight,

advanced materials for ship and ground

vehicle applications. This conference is set up to explore from 

a design standpoint the challenges and new developments

regarding the application of

advanced materials for the 

purpose of weight reduction 

and improved performance.

Furthermore, these discussions

lead to establishing the status of current advanced materials

technology, as well as future directions for research and development. Achieving lower total ownership costs and enhanced

manufacturing capability through collaboration of government

and industry organizations is a further objective of this conference. Types of materials discussed include titanium, magnesium, aluminum and composites. Attendees typically include

scientists, engineers, program managers, fabricators, suppliers,

and designers from the DOD, other government organizations

and industry. The next Advanced Materials Conference is currently in the planning stages for the Spring of 2006.

Attendance is limited to qualified individuals.[3]

CORROSION CONFERENCES

Tri-Service Corrosion Conference

The Tri-Service Corrosion Conference has been hosted fifteen

times since being initiated by the Air Force in 1967. The purpose of the conference is to promote interaction among the

military services through a forum wherein the Federal

Government’s corrosion technologists and interested defense

contractors have an open exchange of the latest corrosion

issues relevant to military systems. Moreover, these conferences

provide increased visibility of DOD corrosion control and prevention efforts and promote novel and innovative solutions to

DOD corrosion problems.[4]

This exchange of information encourages cooperative efforts which will aid in

the development of integrated corrosion

prevention and control technologies.

Furthermore, these conferences provide

the DOD with feedback, assessments, and

recommendations from recognized experts

in the corrosion field. The overall goal of these interactions

between DOD, private industry, academia, and other government agencies is to reduce life cycle costs through advances in

corrosion control and prevention technologies.[4]

The next conference will be November 14-18, 2005, in

Orlando, Florida, and anyone can attend. The overall goal of

this year’s conference is “Transcending and Integrating

Corrosion Prevention and Control for the Department of

Defense.”[5] All past conferences and their host city are listed

in Table 2.

Air Force Corrosion Program Conference

The Air Force Corrosion Prevention and Control Office brings

together DOD organizations annually to discuss the status of

their corrosion prevention and control

programs. In particular, corrosion

requirements, problems, and recently

approved materials and processes are

discussed. The next conference is

scheduled for March 13-17, 2006.[6]

Marine and Offshore Coatings and Corrosion Conference

(Mega Rust)

A new conference has been formed by the merging of five 

related programs. This “Mega Rust” conference, the Marine

and Offshore Coatings and Corrosion Conference is the consolidation of the following programs:[7]

• US Navy’s Fleet Corrosion Control Forum

• National Paint and Coatings Association’s International

Marine and Offshore Coatings Conference

• US Navy and Industry Corrosion Technology Exchange

“Rust Conference”

• National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP) SP-3

Meeting

• Submarine Preservation Conference

This conference focuses on technologies and strategies for

controlling corrosion, and is set up to cultivate dialogue

between the companies that provide corrosion control technologies and the military or commercial organizations that

require corrosion control solutions for various applications.

Participants of this conference include personnel from industry, government, and the military. Topic areas include coatings,

corrosion control technologies and strategies, and government

regulations. The 2005 conference was held in June, and the

date for the next conference has not yet been announced.

US Army Corrosion Summit

The purpose of the US Army Corrosion Summit is to identify

corrosion issues for the Army Transformation, current corrosion

problems on weapon systems, potential corrosion 

solutions, and corrosion technology gaps. Further objectives of

the conference are to share success stories and document

Table 2. Past Tri-Service Corrosion Conferences.

Year Location

1967 Denver, Colorado

1972 Houston, Texas

1974 Dayton, Ohio

1976 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

1979 New Orleans, Louisiana

1980 USAF Academy, Colorado

1985 Orlando, Florida

1987 USAF Academy, Colorado

1989 Warminster, Pennsylvania

1992 Plymouth, Massachusetts

1994 Orlando, Florida

1997 Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina

1999 Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

2002 San Antonia, Texas

2003 Las Vegas, Nevada
http://iac.dtic.mil/amptiac The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2 19

requirements and capabilities. The conference brings together program managers,

engineers, depot and facility personnel, and

manufacturers from government, industry,

and academia. Specific topics and applications discussed include

electronics, armament, helicopters, missile systems, ground

vehicles, infrastructure, field maintenance, protective coatings,

advanced materials, microelectronics, micro-electromechanical

systems, non-metallic material degradation, and environmental

issues. The 2006 US Army Corrosion Summit is scheduled for

February 14-16, in Clearwater Beach, Florida.[8]

AIRCRAFT AND SPACE APPLICATIONS CONFERENCES

Aircraft Structural Integrity Program

The Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP) brings together scientists and engineers from the DOD, NASA, FAA and

the aerospace industry to exchange

information on current technologies

in the area of aircraft structural

integrity. The focus of the conference

is on airframe and engine structural

integrity, including design, manufacture, nondestructive inspection, life management and maintenance for both military and

commercial aircraft. The 21st ASIP Conference will be held

from November 29 through December 1, 2005 in Memphis,

Tennessee, and anyone can attend.[9]

National Space and Missile Materials Symposium

The National Space and Missile Materials Symposium draws

system engineers, designers, scientists, and managers who are

facing the challenges of materials and processes for space and

missile applications. The symposium is intended to promote

the importance of supporting advanced materials research and

technology development to meet the specific challenges associated with space and missile systems. This focus will ultimately

help to improve the performance and reliability of both commercial and government systems.[10]

The National Space and Missile Materials Symposium began

as an Air Force Research Laboratory Materials Directorate program review in 1996 involving more than 250 engineers and

project managers from the Air Force, NASA and industry.

Following this successful meeting, a national Tri-Service and

NASA sponsored symposium was established in 1998. With

continued Tri-Service and NASA sponsorship led by the Air

Force, the meeting has become an annual event. The 2005

symposium was held in June, and the date for next year’s symposium has not yet been announced. Attendance is limited to

qualified individuals.[10]

Joint FAA/DOD/NASA Conference on Aging Aircraft

This conference, which is organized and facilitated by the

Joint Council on Aging Aircraft (JCAA), addresses the common issues and technical aspects associated with the aging

fleets of military and commercial aircraft. Advancements in

the development and implementation of new technology, and

managing of aging aircraft systems and fleets are focal points

in the presentations given at the conference. Topic areas

include preventing or mitigating structural, electrical, avionic,

or engine failure; corrosion; non-destructive inspection; and

health monitoring.[11] The 9th Joint FAA/DOD/NASA

Confernce on Aging Aircraft will be held March 6-9, 2006 in

Atlanta, Georgia.[12]

National Thermal Protection Systems Workshop

The purpose of this workshop is to provide a forum where the

status of thermal protection system (TPS) technologies and

requirements based on the directions of DOD and NASA programs are discussed. The National Thermal Protection Systems

Workshop typically covers technologies associated with thermal

protection, thermal management, and hot structures that are

used for space access, hypersonic and reentry vehicles.

Ultimately, the objective of the Thermal Protection Systems

Workshop is to develop a National Plan for the development of

TPS that will be used in future NASA and DOD space vehicles. All types of TPS materials are covered including metallic

and non-metallic materials. Attendance is limited to qualified

individuals.

ELECTRONIC AND OPTICAL MATERIALS CONFERENCES

Electromagnetic Windows Symposium

The Electromagnetic Windows Symposium is held once every

two years to provide an environment where scientists and engineers from government, industry and academia can exchange

information related to the development of radome, antenna window, and optical window technologies. Topics related to the

research, development, modeling, testing, and evaluation of electromagnetic windows are typically discussed. Conference organization responsibility rotates between the Navy, Air Force, and

Army. The next symposium will be held in San Diego from May

1-4, 2006. Attendance is limited to qualified individuals.[13]

Components for Military and Space Electronics Conference

and Exhibition

This conference draws engineers and managers to exchange

information concerning issues related to electronic systems and

devices for military and space applications. The focus of this

conference is on the testing, selection, application, reliability,

and failure analysis of electronic components and systems. New

technologies, processes, design strategies, and approaches for

updating older military systems are also an integral part of the

event. The conference typically results in providing a comparison between the application of Mil-Spec electronics and

Commercial-Off-The-Shelf products.[14]

HIGH TEMPERATURE POLYMER COMPOSITES 

CONFERENCE

High Temple Workshops

The High Temple Workshops, which were initiated in 1982 by

a Tri-Service/NASA steering group, are a series of workshops

that cover the areas of design, development and application of

U.S. ARMY

CORROSION

SUMMIT
20 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2

high temperature reinforced polymeric composites. The 

primary purpose of High Temple is to communicate ongoing

high temperature polymer composite research among 

DOD, NASA, other governmental agencies, industry and universities. Over the years, interdisciplinary teams were formed to advance and

implement high temperature polymer

composites in many applications, such

as advanced engine and aero-structure components. These

teams continue to make significant advances in composite

related technologies, such as fiber-resin interfaces, new

chemistries that enhance thermal oxidative stability, high temperature test methods, design-material databases, and low-cost

and intelligent processing techniques.[1]

Today, government overviews of federally-sponsored high

temperature composites research serve to create an awareness

in both the public and private sector. New monomer and

polymer chemistries continue to be introduced at High

Temple, often before they are published in peer-reviewed

journals. Newer technical subjects, such as electron beam curing, low-cost processing and coatings are some of the topics

that continue to make High Temple one of the premier composite technical meetings. Past Conferences and their host

city are listed in Table 3. The next High Temple meeting is

scheduled for February 13-16, 2006 in Austin, Texas.

Attendance is limited to qualified individuals.[1] 

SURVIVABILITY CONFERENCE

US Army Ground Vehicle Survivability Symposium

The US Army Ground Vehicle Survivability Symposium is set

up to provide a forum for technology developers, the acquisition community and the end-user to exchange ideas and discuss

the plans for the future of survivability technologies. The ultimate goal of the symposium is to bring the greatest capability

to the Soldier rapidly. Typical topics include damage reduction

technologies, lightweight armor, and active protection systems.

Attendance to this conference is limited to qualified individuals.[15]

HEALTH MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Integrated Systems Health Management Conference

The Integrated Systems Health Management Conference led

by the US Air Force Research Laboratory is set up to provide a

collaborative and informative environment for

those from DOD, industry and academia

involved with researching, developing and

applying integrated systems and health management (ISHM) technologies. ISHM research

and development is directed toward application areas such as flight control systems, aerospace structures, propulsion systems, ISHM architecture, and

information management. The 2005 conference was held in

August and no date has been announced for the next meeting.

Attendance to the ISHM Conference is limited to qualified

individuals.[16]

NANOSTRUCTURED MATERIALS CONFERENCE

NanoMaterials for Defense Applications Symposium

Government and industry technical representatives gather at

this symposium to collaborate and explore the potential of

nanostructured materials for DOD applications. An objective

of this symposium is to assist in the advancement of nanomaterials technologies, such that Defense systems will realize

their potential in the near future. This symposium is currently sponsored by the Air Force Research Laboratory Materials

and Manufacturing Directorate (AFRL/ML), the Army

Research Laboratory (ARL), the Naval Research Laboratory

(NRL), and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

(DARPA). The 4th annual NanoMaterials for Defense

Application Symposium, with the theme: “Accelerating the

Transition,” will be held May 2-4, 2006 in Virginia Beach,

Virginia.[17]

FATIGUE DAMAGE CONFERENCE

International Conference on Fatigue Damage 

of Structural Materials

The purpose of this conference is to bring together experts

from academia, industry, government, and the military to 

discuss advances in the knowledge of fatigue damage to structural materials. Additionally, it is the goal of the conference to

discuss advances in the technology of analysis, prediction,

theoretical treatment and experimental characterization of

fatigue damage.[18] The next conference, which will take

place from September 17-22, 2006 in Hyannis,

Massachusetts, is sponsored by the Office of Naval Research

International Field Office, Office of Naval Research HeadTable 3. Past High Temple Workshops.

Year Location

1982 NASA/White Sands Test Facility, New Mexico

1982 Dayton, Ohio

1983 Dayton, Ohio

1984 Hampton, Virginia

1985 Monterey, California

1986 Cocoa Beach, Florida

1987 Sacramento, California

1988 Riviera Beach, Florida

1989 Pasadena, California

1990 Cocoa Beach, Florida

1991 Sparks, Nevada

1992 Cocoa Beach, Florida

1993 Santa Fe, New Mexico

1994 Cocoa Beach, Florida

1995 Santa Fe, New Mexico

1996 Orange Beach, Alabama

1997 Monterey, California

1998 Hilton Head Island, South Carolina

1999 Denver, Colorado

2000 San Diego, California

2001 Clearwater Beach, Florida

2002 Santa Fe, New Mexico

2003 Jacksonville, Florida

2004 Sacramento, California

2005 Point Clear, Alabama
http://iac.dtic.mil/amptiac The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2 21

quarters, US Air Force Research Laboratory, and the US

Army Research Office.

SHIPBUILDING TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE

ShipTech

This event allows Navy program offices, shipbuilders, suppliers,

researchers, and engineers from the DOD, academia and

industry to exchange information on shipbuilding technology. Materials and processes are largely integrated in the development

of technology for shipbuilding and manufacturing of ship systems. The primary goal of

the event is the exchange of technical information to reduce total ownership costs while

advancing domestic shipbuilding

capabilities. ShipTech 2006 will be

held in Biloxi, Mississippi, January

24-25, and anyone can attend.[19]

SUMMARY

Although it is not comprehensive, this article summarized

some of the conferences and symposia related to materials and

processes technology that are sponsored, administered, or

attended by DOD personnel. New conferences and symposia

are initiated just about every year, or old ones are combined

or split apart to become either more wide-reaching in scope

or more focused on a particular subject area. However, this

article provides a snapshot of some of the more significant

and established events held throughout the year, as well as a

few of the recently initiated or changed events. Many of the

conferences for 2005 have already been held, and dates and

locations have not yet been established for the next meeting.

For up-to-date information on conferences and symposia

check out the “Mark Your Calendar” page in each issue of the

AMPTIAC Quarterly, or the Calendar of Events page on the

AMPTIAC website: http://amptiac.alionscience.com/News

AndEvents/eCalendar/.

REFERENCES

[1] http://namis.alionscience.com/index2.htm

[2] http://www.dmc.utcdayton.com/

[3] http://www.ncemt.ctc.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=eventinfo

&id=39

[4] http://namis.alionscience.com/conf/tscc/about.htm

[5] http://www.nace.org/NACE/content/conferences/triservice/

welcome_0.asp

[6] http://www.afcpo.com/

[7] http://www.nstcenter.com/

[8] http://www.armycorrosion.com/summit.html

[9] http://www.asipcon.com/

[10] http://www.usasymposium.com/nsmms/default.htm

[11] http://www.agingaircraft.utcdayton.com/

[12] http://agingaircraftconference.org

[13] http://www.usasymposium.com/emws/default.htm

[14] http://www.cti-us.com/ucmsemain.htm

[15] http://www.tacom.army.mil/tardec/nST_v1.2story4.htm

[16] http://www.usasymposium.com/ishm/default.htm

[17] http://www.usasymposium.com/nano/default.htm

[18] http://www.fatiguedamage.elsevier.com/scope.htm

[19] http://www.ncemt.ctc.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=event

info&eventid=40

Recent US Patents

Patent Number Title Patent Number Title

6,928,251 Image forming device including frames formed of resin 

containing no glass fibers

6,928,224 Laser-induced crystallization of transparent glass-ceramics

6,928,220 Sol-gel-derived optical fiber preform and method of 

manufacture

6,928,200 Ultra-thin polarization mode converters based on liquid 

crystal materials

6,927,829 Matrix substrate, liquid crystal display device using it, 

and method for producing the matrix substrate

6,927,823 Method for alignment of liquid crystals using irradiated 

liquid crystal films

6,927,537 Organic electroluminescence device

6,927,421 Heat sink material

6,927,315 Adhesive composite having distinct phases

6,927,301 Well-defined nanosized building blocks for organic/inorganic

nanocomposites

6,927,298 3,4-alkylenedioxythiophenedioxide compounds 

and polymers comprising monomeric units thereof

6,927,275 Process for producing polyester resins

6,927,269 Functionalized elastomers

6,927,268 Production process for water-absorbent resin

6,927,265 Melt-processible thermoplastic fluoropolymers having improved

processing characteristics and method of producing same

6,927,259 Curable base-resistant fluoroelastomers

6,927,185 Porous material and method for preparation thereof

6,926,995 Fuel cell separators and solid polymer fuel cells

6,926,971 Bonded metal components having uniform thermal conductivity

characteristics and method of making same

6,926,926 Silicon carbide deposited by high density plasma 

chemical-vapor deposition with bias

6,926,853 Continuous impregnation of long fibers with resin for 

manufacturing elongated composite elements

6,926,780 Method of surface self-nanocrystallization of metallic 

materials

6,926,755 Method for preparing aluminum-base metallic alloy articles

without melting

6,926,754 Method for preparing metallic superalloy articles having 

thermophysically melt incompatible alloying elements, 

without melting

6,926,496 High temperature turbine nozzle for temperature reduction 

by optical reflection and process for manufacturing

6,926,127 Friction members made from fiber-reinforced 

ceramic composite materials and processes for 

making friction members

6,924,245 Glass ceramic composition, glass ceramic sintered material 

and ceramic multilayer substrate

6,921,606 Composite films for electrochemical device

6,921,431 Thermal protective coating for ceramic surfaces

6,920,817 Composite armor structure

6,919,289 Methods and compositions for low thermal expansion 

ceramic

6,919,042 Oxidation and fatigue resistant metallic coating

6,919,035 Metal oxide coated polymer substrates

6,912,944 Ceramic armour systems with a front spall layer and 

a shock absorbing layer

6,908,517 Methods of fabricating metallic materials
International Symposium on

Superalloys 718, 625, 706 

and Derivatives

10/02/05 – 10/05/05

Pittsburgh, PA

Contact: TMS Meetings Services

184 Thorn Hill Road

Warrendale, PA 15086

Phone: 724.776.9000 

Fax: 724.776.3770

Email: mtgserv@tms.org

Web Link: http://doc.tms.org

Magnetics 2005

10/24/05 - 10/26/05

Indianapolis, IN

Contact: Scott Gates

Webcom Communications

Phone: 800.803.9488 ext 105

Email: scottg@infowebcom.com

Web Link: www.magneticsmagazine.com

SAMPE Fall 2005 – Materials and

Processing Technologies for

Revolutionary Applications

10/31/05 – 11/03/05

Seattle, WA

Contact: SAMPE

1161 Park View Drive

Covina, CA 91724-3751

Phone: 626.331.0616

Fax: 626.332.8929

Email: registration@sampe.org

Web Link: www.sampe.org

UNITECR 2005 - 9th Biennial

Worldwide Congress on Refractories

11/08/05 - 11/11/05

Orlando, FL

Contact: Customer Service

American Ceramic Society

PO Box 6136

Westerville, OH 43086-6136 

Phone: 614.890.4700

Fax: 614.899.6109

Email: info@ceramics.org

Web Link: www.ceramics.org

FABTECH International Forming 

& Fabricating - Stamping - 

Tube & Pipe - Welding

11/13/05 - 11/16/05

Chicago, IL

Contact: Society of Manufacturing Engineers

One SME Drive, PO Box 930

Dearborn, MI 48121-0930

Phone: 800.733.3976

Fax: 313.425.3407

Web Link: www.sme.org

2005 USAF Aircraft Structural 

Integrity Program (ASIP) Conference

11/29/05 - 12/01/05

Memphis, TN

Contact: J. Jennewine

Universal Technology Corporation

1270 North Fairfield Road

Dayton, OH 45432-2600

Phone: 937.426.2808

Fax: 937.426.8755

Email: jjennewine@utcdayton.com

Web Link: http://www.asipcon.com

9th International Ceramic 

Processing Science Symposium

01/08/06 - 01/11/06

Coral Springs, FL

Contact: Customer Service

American Ceramic Society

PO Box 6136

Westerville, OH 43086-6136

Phone: 614.890.4700

Fax: 614.899.6109

Email: info@ceramics.org

Web Link: www.ceramics.org

The 30th International Conference 

& Exposition on Advanced 

Ceramics & Composites

01/22/06 – 01/27/06

Cocoa Beach, FL 

Contact: Mark J. Mecklenborg

American Ceramic Society

735 Ceramic Place, Suite 100

Westerville, OH 43081

Phone: 614.794.5829

Fax: 614.794.5882

Email: mmecklenborg@ceramics.org

Web Link: www.ceramics.org/meetings

2006 International Conference on

Tungsten, Refractory & Hardmetals VI

02/07/06 - 02/08/06

Orlando, FL

Contact: Metal Powder Industries Federation

105 College Road East

Princeton, NJ 08540-6692

Phone: 609.452.7700 ext 11

Fax: 609.987.8523

Web Link: www.mpif.org/

2006 TMS Annual Meeting 

& Exhibition

03/12/06 - 03/16/06

San Antonio, TX

Contact: TMS Meeting Services

184 Thorn Hill Road

Warrendale, PA 15086 

Phone: 724.776.9000 

Fax: 724.776.3770

Email: mtgserv@tms.org

Web Link: http://doc.tms.org

IMAPS/ACerS International Conference

and Exposition on Ceramic

Interconnect and Ceramic

Microsystems Technologies (CICMT) 

04/25/06 – 04/27/06

Denver, CO

Contact: IMAPS-International 

Microelectronics and Packaging Society

611 2nd Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20002

Phone: 202.548.4001

Fax: 202.548.6115

Email: imaps@imaps.org

Web Link: www.imaps.org

AISTech 2006 – The Iron & Steel

Technology Conference and Exposition

05/01/06 – 05/04/06

Cleveland, OH

Contact: Association for Iron 

& Steel Technology

186 Thorn Hill Road

Warrendale, PA 15086-7528

Phone: 724.776.6040

Web Link: www.aist.org

SAMPE® 2006 Symposium 

& Exhibition

04/30/06 - 05/04/06

Long Beach, CA

Contact: SAMPE

1161 Park View Drive

Covina, CA 91724-3751

Phone: 626.331.0616

Fax: 626.332.8929

Email: registration@sampe.org

Web Link: www.sampe.org

Fractography of Glasses

& Ceramics V

07/09/06 - 07/12/06

Rochester, NY

Contact: Customer Service

American Ceramic Society

Westerville, OH 43086-6136 

Phone: 614.890.4700

Fax: 614.899.6109

Email: info@ceramics.org

Web Link: www.ceramics.org

2006 TMS Fall Extraction 

& Processing Meeting:

Sohn International Symposium

08/21/06 - 08/31/06

San Diego, CA

Contact: TMS, Meeting Services

184 Thorn Hill Road

Warrendale, PA 15086 

Phone: 724.776.9000 ext 243

Fax: 724.776.3700

Email: mtgserv@tms.org

Mark Your Calendar

22 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2
http://iac.dtic.mil/amptiac The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 2 23

AMPTIAC Directory

Government Personnel

TECHNICAL MANAGER/COTR

Dr. Lewis E. Sloter II

Staff Specialist, Materials & Structures

ODUSD(S&T)/Weapons Systems

1777 North Kent St, Ste 9030

Arlington, VA 22209-2110

(703) 588-7418, Fax: (703) 588-7560

Email: lewis.sloter@osd.mil

ASSOCIATE COTR

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

& SPECIAL FUNCTION MATERIALS

Dr. James Murday

Naval Research Laboratory

4555 Overlook Ave, S.W. Code 6100

Washington, DC 20375-5320

(202) 767-3026, Fax: (202) 404-7139

Email: murday@nrl.navy.mil

DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

(DTIC) POC

Melinda Rozga, DTIC-AI

8725 John J. Kingman Rd, Ste 0944

Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-6218

(703) 767-9120, Fax: (703) 767-9119

Email: mrozga@dtic.mil

DIRECTOR, AMPTIAC

David Rose

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440-6916

(315) 339-7023, Fax: (315) 339-7107

Email: drose@alionscience.com

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AMPTIAC

Christian E. Grethlein, P.E.

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440-6916

(315) 339-7009, Fax: (315) 339-7107

Email: cgrethlein@alionscience.com

TECHNICAL INQUIRY SERVICES MANAGER

David Brumbaugh

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440-6916

(315) 339-7113, Fax: (315) 339-7107

Email: dbrumbaugh@alionscience.com

Alion Science and Technology Personnel

answers materials engineering questions

CALL : 315-339-7090

EMAIL : amptiac_inquiries@alionscience.com

O R

VISIT : http ://amptiac.alionscience.com/Help/inquiry.html

AMPTIAC
http :// iac.dtic.mil/amptiac

Prsrt Std

US Postage 

Paid

Utica, NY

Permit No. 566

AMPTIAC

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440-6916

Free Subscription

http://amptiac.alionscience.com/subscribe/

Inquiry Line/Ask the Experts

315.339.7090