COMPOSITES & POLYCON 2007
American Composites Manufacturers Association
October 17-19, 2007
Tampa, FL USA
Impact Properties of Polyester Resins
by
Dr. Stephen Brooks, Reichhold Industries, Inc.
Abstract
Manufacturers of composite materials are often con-
cerned with how tough or durable a composite part will
be in service. Generally designers will look at the tensile
elongation value of a given resin as an indicator of a res-
ins ability to absorb or transfer energy when subject to a
particular dynamic load. This paper investigates impact
properties of several different resin chemistries and
whether and to what extent the static tensile elongation
value of a resin relates to a composites ability to absorb
energy when subject to an impact load. Tensile elonga-
tion values (ASTM D638) are compared with Izod
(ASTM D256) and puncture-type (ASTM D3763) results
for both clear cast and reinforced laminates.
Introduction
Composite structures may be subject to a variety of
loading conditions depending upon their application.
These applied forces may be internal or external and
be chemical, thermal, electromagnetic or mechanical in
nature.
Designers will often look at a number of different
physical and mechanical properties of a material to de-
termine its suitability for service. Within the composites
industry, one of the properties that is looked at with
much scrutiny is the percent-elongation of a resin (as de-
termined by a standard tensile test like ASTM D638).
Percent-elongation is considered to be a good indicator
of a resins durability or toughness when subject to a me-
chanical load.
This paper looks at the impact properties of six dif-
ferent resin chemistries and investigates whether and to
what extent the tensile elongation value of a resin relates
to its mechanical toughness.
COMPOSITES & POLYCON 2007
1
Experimental Design
This study considers six resin chemistries including
PG-Maleate (PG-M), dicyclopentadiene (DCPD), or-
thophthalic (Ortho), terephthalic (Tere), isophthalic (Iso)
and vinyl ester (VE). All resins in this study are at 60%
non-volatiles (40% styrene), promoted identically using
12% cobalt and dimethylaniline (DMA) and inhibited
with hydroquinone (HQ) for a gel time of 30 minutes.
All resins were initiated with 1.25% by weight methyl
ethyl ketone peroxide (MEKP).
Eighth-inch thick clear-castings were made be-
tween glass plates. The castings were cured at 77F for
16 hours and then post-cured for 2 hours at 150F and
then 2 hours at 250F. Clear cast tensile, Izod impact
and puncture specimens were fabricated and tested in
accordance with ASTM D638, ASTM D256 and ASTM
D3763, respectively.
Laminates were fabricated at 40 weight-percent
glass using four plies of 1.5 ounce chopped strand mat.
The laminates were made via hand lay-up between poly-
ethylene terephthalate polyester sheets and allowed to
cure at 77F for 16 hours. The laminates were post-
cured for 2 hours at 150F and then 2 hours at 250F.
Laminate tensile, Izod impact and puncture specimens
were fabricated and tested in accordance with ASTM
D638, ASTM D256 and ASTM D3763, respectively.
Theory
Materials may be classified as either brittle,
tough or ductile. Brittle materials are identified by
low strain-to-failure, but may be quite strong. Tough
materials are generally characterized by both high-
strength and high strain-to-failure. A ductile material
usually has low-strength, but a very high strain-to-
failure. The stress-strain behavior of these three material
classifications is illustrated by the load-displacement
curves of Figure 1.
By definition the energy absorbed by a material
during loading to the point if failure is the area under the
load-displacement curve as illustrated in Figure 1 and is
represented by
x = x failure
Energy = P( x)dx
x =0
where P is the applied load and x is the displacement.
The toughness of a material is defined as the energy
absorbed per unit volume during loading to the point of
failure. This is equivalent to the area under the stress-
strain curve as defined by
 = failure
Toughness = ( )d
=0
where is the stress (=P/A), is the strain ( = L/L),
A is the cross sectional area and L is the change in
length L.
Results
The results of the tensile, Izod and puncture-type
impact testing are given in graphical form in Figures 2
10. Figures 2-5 are clear-cast tensile-elongation, tensile-
toughness, Izod impact energy and puncture-type impact
energy vs. resin chemistry, respectively. Figures 6-10
are laminate tensile-elongation, tensile-toughness, Izod
impact energy, puncture-type impact energy, and first-
crack puncture-type impact energy vs. resin chemistry,
respectively. Note that each plot shows the spread of the
data along with the average value for each data set.
Figure 11 shows one set of clear-cast puncture-type
impact specimens after testing. Figure 12 shows one set
of puncture-type laminate impact specimens after testing.
The drop height and weight used for each specimen type
is listed in Figure 13 and 14 (Tables 1 and 2). Note that
the clear-cast specimens where impacted using different
drop heights (related to how easily each specimen type
failed). Laminate specimens were all tested from the
same drop height.
Discussion
The test data was arranged to depict specific resin
properties as a function of resin tensile elongation. The
clear-cast tensile-toughness, Izod impact energy and
puncture-type impact energy vs. clear-cast tensile-
elongation data is displayed in figures 15-17, respec-
tively. For each plot, the box represents the area of data
scatter and the dot represents the average of the data for
each chemistry.
Figure 15 depicts a linear relationship between ten-
sile-elongation and resin toughness. A relationship
would be expected since the toughness is the area under
the stress-strain curve (i.e. resin toughness is a function
of strain). Figure 16 shows the Izod impact energy vs.
tensile-elongation. A linear relationship appears to exist;
although this terephthalic resin shows the most departure
from this trend. Figure 17 shows the puncture-type im-
pact energy vs. tensile-elongation. A linear relationship
appears to exist for all but this terephthalic resin chemis-
try.
The laminate tensile-toughness, Izod impact energy,
puncture-type impact energy and puncture-type first-
crack energy vs. clear-cast tensile elongation are given in
figures 18-21. From this data, clear cast tensile elonga-
COMPOSITES & POLYCON 2007
tion does not appear to be related to laminate tensile-
toughness, laminate Izod impact energy or laminate
puncture-type impact energy. Does the glass reinforce-
ment play a dominant role in these three instances? Are
the fiber-matrix interface properties (bonding) more
critical than the resin elongation? On the other hand,
there does appear to be a linear relationship between
clear-cast tensile elongation and laminate impact-type
energy to first-crack (Figure 21). In other words, resins
with higher tensile elongation appear to inhibit the initia-
tion of damage (crack initiation).
So why would there be a difference between first-
crack energy and laminate failure energy as it relates to
clear-cast tensile-elongation? Well, there may be a rela-
tionship between clear-cast tensile-elongation and the
laminate properties previously mentioned. The caveat is
that data presented here does not account for the amount
of damage that occurs during laminate failure. Looking
at Figure 12, while the impact height and weight were
identical for the laminates tested, and while the results
show that the laminates absorbed similar amounts of en-
ergy to failure, you can see that the amount of damage
(crack propagation) done to each specimen type differs
noticeably. In other words, the amount of crack-surface-
area created in each specimen is different. The damage
appears to be more localized in the laminates fabricated
from the higher tensile elongation resins.
Unfortunately, there is not a good method for
measuring the amount of damage done to a laminate. If
you were able to quantify the amount of new surface area
created by fracturing the resin and glass, it might be pos-
sible to get a better picture of the relationship between
clear-cast tensile-elongation and the laminate impact
properties. Fortunately, the energy absorbed to first-
crack gives a measure of the relationship between clear-
cast tensile-elongation and laminate impact properties.
Conclusion
Different resin chemistries impart different levels of
toughness to a composite part just as they would affect
any other mechanical property. There does appear to be
a relationship between a resins tensile-elongation value
and a laminates impact toughness. The relationship is
observable in a puncture-type impact-test by determining
the energy to first-crack. However, as with any material
used for a given application, while certain simplifying
assumptions may be used for initial material screening,
there is no substitute for testing the actual materials and
construction as not all materials or material combinations
may exhibit an expected behavior.
2
 10

Energy (ft lbs / in )

2
6.93
Brittle Tough 6 5.76 5.50
Load

5.00
4 3.81

2 2.05
Ductile
0
PG-M DCPD Ortho Tere Iso VE
Displacement Resin Chemistry

Figure 1. Load vs. Displacement show- Figure 4. Clear-cast Izod impact en-
ing brittle, tough and ductile materials. ergy vs. resin chemistry.
Energy = area under load displacement
curve. 9.0
8.0
8

Impact Energy (ft lbs / in)

7.0
7
6.0
5.61
6 5.0
Elongation (%)

5 4.0 4.01
3.41
3.0
4 3.95
2.18 2.39 2.36
3.42 2.0
3
1.0
2 1.96 2.12
1.62 0.0
1.23 PG-M DCPD Ortho Tere Iso VE
1
PG-M DCPD Ortho Tere Iso VE Resin Chemistry
Resin Chemistry Figure 5. Clear-cast puncture-type impact en-
Figure 2. Clear-cast tensile-elongation ergy vs. resin chemistry.
vs. resin chemistry.
2.8
710

610 2.4
Elongation (%)

510 2.22
Toughness (psi)

410 2.0 2.02 1.97

1.95 1.94
1.89
310 319
234 1.6
210

110 107 118

64 1.2
39
10 PG-M DCPD Ortho Tere Iso VE
PG-M DCPD Ortho Tere Iso VE Resin Chemistry
Resin Chemistry
Figure 6. Laminate tensile-elongation vs. resin
Figure 3. Clear-cast tensile toughness chemistry.
vs. resin chemistry.

COMPOSITES & POLYCON 2007

3
 400 14.0

350 12.0
Tensile Thoughness (psi)

Energy (ft lbs / in)

First Crack Impact
300 10.0
9.10
260 266 261
250 242 246 250 8.0
7.31
6.68
200 6.0

150 4.0 4.38 4.17 4.33

100 2.0

50 0.0
PG-Mal DCPD Ortho Tere Iso VE PG-M DCPD Ortho Tere Iso VE
Resin Chemistry Resin Chemistry

Figure 7. Laminate tensile-toughness vs. resin Figure 10. Laminate puncture-type first-crack
chemistry. impact energy vs. resin chemistry.

70

60
Energy (ft lbs / in2)

50
45.6
40 40.3 39.7
37.8 38.1
33.4
30

20

10
PG-M DCPD Ortho Tere Iso VE
Resin Chemistry

Figure 8. Laminate Izod impact energy vs.

resin chemistry.

80
Impact Energy (ft lbs / in)

70 69.1
64.6
60 60.0 59.3
58.1
56.0
50

40

30
PG-M DCPD Ortho Tere Iso VE
Resin Chemistry
Figure 11. Clear-cast puncture-type impact
Figure 9. Laminate puncture-type impact en- specimens.
ergy vs. resin chemistry.

COMPOSITES & POLYCON 2007

4
 Impact Impact
Laminate Height Weight
(in) (lbs)
PG-M 12.0 11.3
DCPD 12.0 11.3
Ortho 12.0 11.3
Tere 12.0 11.3
Iso 12.0 11.3
VE 12.0 11.3
Figure 14. Table 2 Laminate puncture-
type impact load configurations.
700
VE

525

Toughness (psi)
350
Ortho Iso
DCPD Tere
175
PG-M
Average
0
0 2 4 6 8
Tensile Elongation (%)

Figure 15. Clear-cast tensile-toughness vs.

clear-cast tensile-elongation.

10
Figure 12. Laminate puncture-type impact
Izod Impact Energy (ft lbs / in )
2

VE
specimens. Iso
8

Impact Impact Ortho

Clear 6
Height Weight
Cast DCPD Tere
(in) (lbs) 4
PG-M 0.60 11.3
PG-M
DCPD 0.60 11.3 2
Ortho 0.60 11.3 Average
Tere 0.72 11.3 0
0 2 4 6 8
Iso 0.72 11.3
Tensile Elongation (%)
VE 1.20 11.3
Figure 13. Table 1 Clear-cast puncture- Figure 16. Clear-cast Izod impact energy vs.
type impact load configurations. clear-cast elongation.

COMPOSITES & POLYCON 2007

5
 10 80
PG-M
VE
DCPD
Impact Energy (ft lbs / in)

8 70 Ortho
Iso

Energy (ft lbs / in)

Laminate Impact
Tere
6 Orth 60 Iso
DCPD VE
4 50
PG-M X
Tere
2 40

Average Average
0 30
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Tensile Elongation (%) Clear Cast Tensile Elongation (%)

Figure 17. Clear-cast puncture-type impact en- Figure 20. Laminate puncture-type impact en-
ergy vs. Clear-cast tensile-elongation. ergy vs. clear-cast tensile-elongation.
14
PG-M

First Crack Energy (ft lbs / in)

12 DCPD
Ortho
10 Tere
410
Laminate Tensile Toughness (psi)

PG-Mal 8 Iso
360 DCPD VE
Ortho 6
310 Tere
4
260 Iso
VE 2
210 Average
0
160 0 2 4 6 8
110 Tensile Elongation (%)
Average
60 Figure 21. Laminate puncture-type first-crack
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
impact energy vs. clear-cast tensile-elongation.
Clear Cast Tensile Elongation (%)

Figure 18. Laminate tensile-toughness vs.

clear-cast tensile-elongation.
Author:
70
PG-M
Izod Impact Energy (ft lbs / in )
2

60 DCPD Dr. Stephen Brooks is a Senior Engineer for Reichhold

Ortho Industries, Inc. With 13 years experience in the compos-
Tere
50 ites industry, his composites background includes hand
Iso
lay-up, spray-up, pultrusion, compression molding
40 VE
(SMC/BMC), resin transfer and resin infusion molding
30 and filament winding.
20
Average
10
0 2 4 6 8
Tensile Elongation (%)

Figure 19. Laminate Izod impact energy

vs. Clear-cast tensile-elongation.

COMPOSITES & POLYCON 2007

6