## 3 Results and Discussions
### Ballistic Performances of the 3D Warp Interlock Fabrics
#### 3.1.3 Normalizations of Energy Absorption Capabilities of 3D Warp Interlock Fabrics  
The initial impact energy for all samples at their corresponding impact shot point might vary due to the different projectile impact velocity. Thus, the calculated energy absorbed values by the panel and transmitted energy to the backing panels might not be a good performance measurement for each panel targets. Considering this, normalizing the energy absorbing capacity of each sample with their corresponding shot points based on the initial total impact energy would be an appropriate approach for better comparison. A significant difference in energy-absorbing capability (%) was also observed among 3D warp interlock fabrics and 2D plain fabric panels at different shot points. Figure 13 shows the energy-absorbing capacity (%) of each sample made of the different binding: stuffer interchange ratio of 3D warp interlock fabrics and 2D plain weave fabric at different shot points.  
Different energy absorption percentage values were also observed at different shot points within the same ballistic panel targets. Sample 3D-40-8B:4S shows a higher percentage of energy-absorbing capability in majority target shot points of both molded and non-molded target areas as compared to other samples made with 3D warp interlock fabrics.  
In the normalized graph, 3D-40-8B:4S also revealed better absorbing capacity at target shot points 1, 3, 4, and 6 as compared to samples made with 2D plain weave (2D-35). This due to the involvements of the two yarn systems in the larger areas for better dissipations of the energy. Besides, the involvements of binding warp yarn helps to absorb more energy due to its waviness properties. Thus, the maximum and minimum absorbed energy capabilities (%) of 3D-40-8B:4S was recorded as 98.1% and 92.6% in target shot point 4 and 5 respectively. Even though 3D warp interlock fabric shows good molding ability [31,45], the energy capability of the 3D-40-8B:4S was reduced in the molded area (shot 5). This is due to its low molding recovery behaviors which in turn minimize the fabric thickness along tensioning of fibers on the specific molded area. Such a mechanism could reveal the reduction of the energy-absorbing capability and hinders the ballistic performances of that particular region. Moreover, sample 3D-40-8B:8S revealed 97%, 94.5%, 94.5%, 96.7%, 97%, 92.6% and 93.1% energy-absorbing percentage for shots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively. Unlike shots 1 and 4 where full penetrations occurred, sample 3D-40-8/8 also recorded 95%, 93%, 92.2%, and 92% for shot points 2, 3, 5, and 6 respectively. This generally shows that a 3D warp interlock fabric should involve an optimized and balanced warp yarn ratios inside its structure for better ballistic performances and lower BFS effects. Considering 2D plain weave fabrics, sample 2D-35, except penetration at shot 6,  
Figure 12: (**a**) Energy absorbed; (**b**) Energy transmitted by different 3D warp interlock and 2D plain weave p-aramid fabric panels at different shoot locations. (* All shots penetrated sample 3D-40-4B:8S, * shot six penetrated sample 2D-35, and * shot 1 & 4).  
it exhibited a 94.89%, 96.52%, 97.3%, 96.62%, 98.09% energy absorption capability for shot 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Unlike our previous studies [37], samples made of 2D plain weave fabric shows higher energy absorbing capabilities on the molded area of the panel (shot 5) than samples made with 3D warp interlock fabrics. This might be due to quick molding recovering of the panels at molded bust areas before ballistic testing. Based on these results, it is indicated that, like other parameters such as fiber type, fabric architecture, panel system, etc., the energy absorbing capacity of panels made of 3D warp interlock fabrics was greatly affected by the warp yarns interchange ratio inside the architecture as well.